I think you're conflating prescriptive rules with descriptive rules

This type of sloppy science is also happening with your sloppy use of language.

If the object is absorbing light, then there is no light reaching the eye and the eye isn't "seeing" the object at all. There's also a lot of words that can be used to question the actual experience of seeing photons (qualia) and whether there's even a consistency of that experience between individuals.

You are free to call it "Chaos" if you choose. But be wary of bringing "us" into this.

So you can recognize something as chaos, but you can't describe it. Then how do you know what to look for?

Also, "something doesn't reflect any rules" is a description.

This would be true if absolute chaos would exist. But chaos is always relative. Relative to something that has rules. For example we call an unruled person an idiot or a psychopath. Their behavior is unpredictable so one can not describe their behavior. But this only exists relative to predictable/describable behavior of others.
=> First there must be "ruled" (wisdom). "Ruled" (wisdom) must be absolute.
If psychopaths were first humans wouldn't have survived. To exist everything must be ruled in the first place. And rules need wisdom. So wisdom must have always existed and is the same as rules. The unruled (or chaos) doesn't exist. Its existence is always relative to other subjects which "we" can predict/describe their behavior. That we cannot predict/describe some behaviors in a meaningful way, this doesn't mean "wisdom" also cannot describe or predict their behaviors.
Put simply: Wisdom (some call it God) must have always existed otherwise nothing would exist.
Till someone can prove that unruled "can" exist, atheism is .

How you guys deserve it that a no one disproves atheism in front of your eyes in a way no one could in human history. I dunno. Life is indescribable.

BTW: Someone might have already done it, I am not very literate. Stopped reading books when I was 17/18.

Ok, so now chaos suddenly is describable, because it is always relative to rules.

It must be easy to disprove stuff when you can literally contradict yourself without even taking pause to reflect over your argument.

Wait, idiocy and psychopathy are totally different conditions. Idiocy is as subjective as a chaotic hell and psychopathy has specific indications. And of course chaos is describable. In the same way that you can shine a light on a dark waterfall and describe what you see in the beam. Got nothing to to do with categorizing people on some dogmatic scales of authoritarian wisdom.

Why describe "disproving atheism" when all I see is a narrative as easy to call as a face-up bluff? You think you are wise and some other folks are unruled. Yeah, how is that wise? How do you know anyone is an idiot or psychopath with enough dear certainty to even qualify as possibly wise?

Clearly, it's easy to chaotically stake out wisdom, but is that really wise?

'I would really like -' began the Nine of Diamonds, but then she put her hand over her mouth without saying any more.
'Yes?' I asked in a friendly voice.
'I would really like to think a thought which is so difficult I can't think it, but I can't'
I pondered over what she had said and realised that that must be diffcult for anyone to master.
Suddenly the Three of Diamonds started to cry. 'I wou ..' she sobbed.
The Nine put her arm around her, and the Three continued. 'I would really like to wake up ... but I am awake.'
Then it was as though the Ace of Hearts had a kind of epilecptic fit. Quivering at the mouth she said, 'The inner box unpacks the outer box at the same time as the outer box unpacks the inner.'

Life is an indescribable mystery, a Solitaire Mystery

Quite.

I didn't say Chaos is describable, I said that absolute Chaos doesn't exist. What I said is that what we call Chaos is only a state/condition of ruled. For example darkness. Darkness is absence of visible light. Attention: Absence of visible light we call darkness. Darkness is a state/condition of visible light.