[Fester Chugabrew]

Taken alone or together, the two do not necessitate . . .

Who's talking about "necessities?" I'm talking about what fits a reasonable theory, a tentative way of explaing the massive presence of organized matter the behaves according to predictable laws. If you want to provide evidence that weakens the theory, then supply an example of disorganized matter that is not subject to any established laws.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Who's talking about "necessities?" I'm talking about what fits a reasonable theory, a tentative way of explaing the massive presence of organized matter the behaves according to predictable laws."

You are. A *tentative way of explaining* things is NOT a scientific theory. Being *reasonable* isn't enough. You need testability.

"If you want to provide evidence that weakens the theory, then supply an example of disorganized matter that is not subject to any established laws."

That won't weaken the claim. An omnipotent, omniscient deity can do anything, even have *disorganized matter that is not subject to any established laws". You have already said that EVERY CONSEIVABLE OBSERVATION is in line with your claim. How can ANYTHING weaken a theory that is correct in every conceivable situation?