Even if your hypothetical were true, it does not help your materialist cause.
I don't have a materialist cause, as I am not a philosophical materialist, I am a rigorous philosophical naturalist, which means I'm neutral about immaterial causes. Which means, incidently, that I don't have a hypothetical, either, since I'm indifferent. Oh, and I don't have a cause either, except to see that science is taught in the science classroom. Other than that, though, your response is right on the mark.
The imaginer is still an intelligent being and your reality (and mine) still depends on the rules set by that intelligent being.
You don't know that. And we've been through this before. You have no proof that the imagineer is intelligent, if intelligent, you have no indication that suggests to what level of detail the imagineer had to understand the details of what he was imagining for it to work out. You have no proof that the imagineer isn't caught in an endless loop where she imagines up something that in turn imagines her up. When you propose immaterial causes, you can't be disproved, but for the same reasons, you can't pin them down with any persuasive authority.
Don, please, let's be honest, your interest goes a lot deeper than 'science'. Anyways, I really do not see any difference between your postings and what is normally called materialist. Please elucidate the difference, I sure can't figure it out.
The imaginer is still an intelligent being and your reality (and mine) still depends on the rules set by that intelligent being.-me-
You don't know that.
Of course I know that. To even imagine such a complex world must require a tremendous amount of intelligence. Also it is undeniable that there are certain rules in this world we live in - gravity for example - and many others. So yes, I do know that even under your supposition, this would be true.
And we've been through this before. You have no proof that the imagineer is intelligent, if intelligent, you have no indication that suggests to what level of detail the imagineer had to understand the details of what he was imagining for it to work out. You have no proof that the imagineer isn't caught in an endless loop where she imagines up something that in turn imagines her up. When you propose immaterial causes, you can't be disproved, but for the same reasons, you can't pin them down with any persuasive authority.
You are being totally ridiculous. For one thing we are definitely intelligent beings, even if we were someone's dream that person/being would have to be at least as intelligent as us. Science has also more than proven that there are definite rules in this world we live in. So even if it is the figment of someone's imagination, it does have rules.