Russell's Teapot.
Science is ultimately using empirical data to demonstrate physical laws. Noumenal entities by definition are outside the scope of empiricism, and thereby not under the purview of science.
That doesn't make the discussion pointless, nor does it mean you should automatically believe in someone telling you about their invisible flour-permeable dragon. It just means that empiricism isn't a useful tool, and by extension, that science can't answer those kinds of questions. Nor should it try to.
There's a corollary, though. Things that are outside of empiricism cannot have any effect upon the world that we inhabit, by definition. If they affected the physical world they could not be outside of empiricism. Although perhaps entertaining to contemplate the infinite possibilities, the existence or non-existence of anything outside of empiricism, having no ability to affect our world, is irrelevant.
Arguably whatever set off existence - be it by some creation event, the big bang, or something else - is probably by necessity metaphysical to us, yet still part of the causal chain. The question of causa sui is important.
(post is archived)