Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[Esquilax]

Asking questions as double negatives makes it more difficult for readers to understand your questions. It’s either lazy writing, sloppy thinking, or disingenuous. More simply stated, the question actually asked is the following:

Actually, it was "why would reality be unintelligible if not designed by a god?" which seems to be what you're all about, without ever actually justifying. You seem to think the intelligibility of reality is some huge problem for us, implying that you believe an undesigned universe would be completely random, chaotic and unintelligible; I've seen you intimate things similar to that before, and many other theists do too, but the thing is, I've never seen any of you explain why you think that is. You all seem content to just presuppose it as the case and lob this vague and ill defined "problem" at us anyway.

Regarding the way I initially framed the question, yes, I accept that it was unclear. I make mistakes occasionally too.

That answers your question but I’m pretty sure you meant the question rhetorically in order to assert that the intelligibility of reality is a brute fact. Yet brute fact comes in three different flavors: 1) those that need no explanation, 2) those that have no explanation, and 3) those that cannot be explained.

So which did you have in mind?

I'm more trying to get you to explain why you regard the idea that reality requires a designing mind to be intelligible at all to be so obvious that it shows up time and time again in your argumentation. I see the intelligibility of the universe as what it is, a valid observation that must have some explanation, I just can't understand why a sort of natural consistency is so way out there and crazy for you that you're sufficiently convinced that intelligibility isn't just an observation, but is in fact evidence in itself for god.

That said, I don't really know why I bother asking these things anyway, since your eventual answer will most likely just contain a sequence of philosophical jargon without any justification as to why any of that is important in the first place.