Peter,

> You seem to treat this as a proof against the doctrine, when it is actually what the doctrine describes. <

And I think what the doctrine describes is nonsense on stilts. There is no reason on earth to believe it.

> The doctrine is that the substance changes but the accidents - the taste, feel, nutritional value - all remain <

Which is simply not possible, according to the laws of physics.

> In the Aristotelian metaphysics <

Thanks for the explanation, though unnecessary. I’m a professional philosopher, I have taught Aristotle’s metaphysics. But we got past Aristotelian physics and metaphysics, beginning with Galileo. Time to update, no?

> They are anchored in the "dimensive quantities" of the prior species. <

Which in terms of modern physics translates to…?

> substance is cognitive, not sensual <

That sentence, though grammatically correct, is empirically meaningless.

> Is all of this complicated and perhaps mind-stretching? <

No, it’s simply nonsensical, it doesn’t stretch anything other than credulity.

> go talk to a Kant scholar sometime about how time and space are merely categories by which we order reality rather than things in reality themselves <

That Kant scholar may do well to spend some time studying general relativity.

> It makes perfect sense in Aristotelian metaphysics. <

See above.

> I am not sure that "substance" is a scientific concept <

It is. Just not in the sense of Aristotle.

> Is a hamburger made from plants that tastes like meat but was made from soy a plant or a meat. I think the pragmatic, scientific answer would be, either one depending on how you are using it. <

If you truly think that you have little understanding of science. A hamburger made from plants is an artificial construct made of vegetable material. The fact that it tastes vaguely like an animal doesn’t make an animal.

> what it amounts to is a failure of imagination. God as creator with unlimited power - what kind of power does it take to create ex nihilo - and unlimited information - everything that exists exists as an idea in the mind of God plus His Will. <

That’s an excess of imagination. As in you are imagining things and then pretend they are real.

> God simply does not have a bandwidth problem <

Technically you are right. Non-existing things don’t have bandwidth problems.

> it may seem pretty convenient that this doctrine is not susceptible to falsification by science, but that doesn't mean it makes "no sense" unless you are wedded to a pristine kind of materialism, in which case take up your case with the Kantians <

Yes, it is exceedingly convenient. I don’t really give a fig’s leaf about what Kantians may or may not think. Except in the realm of religion and analytical metaphysics nobody—including metaphysicians and religious people—believes anything unless there is empirical evidence for it. Good enough for me.

> there are eucharistic miracles you could investigate if your interest was in empirical evidence <

Every single time a miracle has actually been investigated it has turned out to be a non-miracle.