"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?
You might want to read back through the thread and see who keeps introducing the words "necessity," "proof," "know," etc. as if these are necessary for a theory to be a theory. The scientific definition of theory does not require absolute facts for every conceivable possibility. It only requires a good amount of evidence. I consider the massive presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws as good evidence for intelligent design, and from it I can infer some things about the intelligent designer. Hint: the presence of pasta is, in my theory, interpreted as an object, not a subject, of intelligent design.
You have already said that EVERY CONCEIVABLE OBSERVATION is in line with your claim.
No. I've given at least one conceivable observation that would weaken my claim, namely the presence of disorganized matter that does not behave according to any predictable law. Another possibility would be for all matter to disintegrate into nothing. Both of these would weaken the theory considerably, but of course they would not disprove it. No theory can be disproven, and no theory can be proven.