Does God require a creator?

[Zwing]

I think that science is grounded in the methodological assumption that everything we observe has a prior cause. We can't actually observe the Big Bang, although we can extrapolate its existence from what we do observe of the early universe. So there is a sense in which belief in the Big Bang is an article of faith, and scientists do act on that faith when they use their reasoning abilities to formulate cosmological theory. Nevertheless, as muhammad_isa pointed out very early on in this thread, our concept of time is based on what we can measure. That is, it is based on dynamic spatial relationships between physical objects. That does not preclude the possibility of time and dynamic spatial relationships that occur outside of the light cone that we can observe. It's just that the best we can do is speculate on the existence of such orthogonal temporal frameworks, and such speculation is not something as reliable as faith grounded in observation and measurement. That's why they call it "blind faith".

Very well said!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Like yourself they stick to thier misguided view... blindly.
Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, or evidence. while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.
Read more.

Truly, the latter does not demonstrate reason. Only insistence on their view being right, and the only understanding... as if they lived for all eternity in the past, so as to know everything.
Faith is not a new term. Perhaps do some research. Let me know what you come up with.

Then we can discuss it
That's way better than just blurting out assertions - irrationality.

Its not irrational. Just being pointed about it.

What's irrational is believing and having complete confidence in something that isn't established to be true.

Faith is essentially the equivalent to taking a gsmble on lady luck. No guarantees. .

 

[Zwing]

Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, or evidence. while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.
[…]
Truly, the latter does not demonstrate reason. Only insistence on their view being right, and the only understanding... as if they lived for all eternity in the past, so as to know everything.

No, I don’t claim to know everything, or even to know that “God does not exist”, or anything like that; the truth of that proposition would seem to be as unverifiable as that of the proposition that “God does exist”. I call that the antitheist viewpoint, and find it to be equally arrogant to the theistic stance. As an atheist, I only claim that I personally have no objective evidence for the existence of deity, nor does it appear that anyone else does. When we believe or “have faith”, we do so without evidence. I personally hold the theistic proposition that “there is a God…” in suspension until I have convincing evidence; in the absence thereof, I will not believe.

The reason that I argue for this viewpoint is connected to my personal history. I was once a Christian: raised Roman Catholic and “accepted Christ” as my personal savior and was again baptized ( this time by immersion) in my late twenties. I was “in the fold”, man. After a certain crisis in my life which appeared to be premised by my faith, I was compelled to reevaluate my belief system upon sound logical grounds with a focus upon answering the question of why I believed as I did. The result of said evaluation is my atheism.

I do not necessarily want to make Christians into atheists. Needless to say, since I experienced a life crisis as well as personal injury which I believe was predicated by my Christian faith, I believe that Christian faith places the bearer of that faith in a position of being in danger for being deluded. Thus, I argue against the faith not to make people anti-theistic or even atheistic, but to place them, and their theism if they want to retain it, upon sounder epistemic grounds than the Pauline faith which is suggested in Hebrews chapter 11. I would rather that Christians claim that “Christ” and “salvation” represent the bright hope that they cling to, as opposed to claiming an excessive “confidence”, a certainty or a conviction which would appear to be irrational for lack of appropriate evidence. A well-founded faith can be held relatively harmless, but an irrational faith poses a danger to the bearer, in my view. I want people to approach their faith on a sounder logical footing than they do, and I argue specific points to that effect, not to see them renounce the their faith lock, stock and barrel.

 

[Audie]

We are now so removed from where this started that it's become irrelevant.

Remember that you jumped in after Mikkel had been talking about the supposed assumptions that science made and I pointed out that we had actual evidence for them and that it wasn't therefore "a leap of faith".

Now you're on about 'faith' in an all but trivial way of reasonable expectation based on evidence. It's an utterly different sense of the word than just making unjustified, unevidenced assumptions.

What's the point other that to try to force the word 'faith' into normal, rational life in an attempt to excuse the blind faith of religion....?

Equivocation games are imo not worth engaging in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that science is grounded in the methodological assumption that everything we observe has a prior cause. We can't actually observe the Big Bang, although we can extrapolate its existence from what we do observe of the early universe. So there is a sense in which belief in the Big Bang is an article of faith, and scientists do act on that faith when they use their reasoning abilities to formulate cosmological theory. Nevertheless, as muhammad_isa pointed out very early on in this thread, our concept of time is based on what we can measure. That is, it is based on dynamic spatial relationships between physical objects. That does not preclude the possibility of time and dynamic spatial relationships that occur outside of the light cone that we can observe. It's just that the best we can do is speculate on the existence of such orthogonal temporal frameworks, and such speculation is not something as reliable as faith grounded in observation and measurement. That's why they call it "blind faith".

That is not correct. There are uncaused events. The basic assumption of science is that there is a natural physical explanation for physical events.

 

[danieldemol]

I get all that .. but atheism is only one possible alternative that one can decide on,
using reason.

Sure if you only partially apply reason and don't look at all the reliable evidence, and cling to unreliable evidence in my view.

But I believe that of all the known possibilities that one can decide on using reason some sort of agnostic atheism is the most reasonable.

I'm not an atheist either, but I dont claim to be a strictly reasonable creature and I suspect many humans aren't reasonable creatures whether they have the intellectual capacity to admit that to that or not.

In my opinion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Do we require a creator or are we just a random fart in the space?

Progress in AI shows that intelligence can be created/programmed...

So not random then, but created?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I must admit I get genuinely puzzled by this sort of conversation. What's the point? Yes, I have a certain levels of confidence in certain things based on experience or evidence, and yes, I guess you could stretch the the word 'faith' to cover that, but why? It's not like my confidence is going to become anything like religious faith, so why do so many religious people try to say "well you have faith too". It seems a little defensive. If you have faith in a different sense to people without religion, why not just own it?

Well, it comes down to proof of justified true belief for knowledge. It has never been done for any worldview as such and not just the religious ones.

In effect philosophy is so far a negative as it is false that there are a justified true belief for knowledge, so in effect all positive worldviews are based on faith as per this definition of trust and faith: firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something and complete trust or confidence in someone or something. In this case in the reliability of that objective reality is real.
Again that is how you get this:
"...
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[43] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. These assumptions would then be justified partly by their adherence to the types of occurrence of which we are directly conscious, and partly by their success in representing the observed facts with a certain generality, devoid of ad hoc suppositions."[44] Kuhn also claims that all science is based on assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions – a paradigm – comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the "correct" paradigm, and there is no such thing as supernatural, i.e. anything above, beyond, or outside of nature. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality, including the human spirit.[46]

Some claim that naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and that the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:[47] ..."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now your group of non-religious people don't like that, because you are taught that you don't do that, because you avoid faith, because science is not really philosophy or a worldview build on faith for the claim that the universe is physical or any other such variants.
So when I or anybody else press you as a group, you without fail don't answer with proof of knowledge. You answer first person psychologically that you don't find it relevant as such. But that is psychological coping and not proof.

So here it is.
You answer to the effect of: I know...
And I just ask how do you know that you know?
And it ends to the effect of that nobody knows that they know. Most of us assume on faith that the universe is real.
So you are not special and neither am I. But I don't claim that I am special, it is you, who do that. Go figure.

 

[Copernicus]

That is not correct. There are uncaused events. The basic assumption of science is that there is a natural physical explanation for physical events.

I said that science makes a methodological assumption that every observed event has a cause. That is correct. In fact, you seem to be making one of those distinctions without a difference, since scientific theories are always natural physical (causal) explanations of natural phenomena. Note that the Big Bang is not an observed event, nor is it anything more than a theoretical extrapolation from the inflation that we observe. The fact is that we don't know whether there could, in some sense, be a prior event, because we cannot observe anything before that event, given the physical limitations on what we can observe. We measure time in terms of spatial relationships, so that's a hard limit. There is no sensible "before" to observe. It is like trying to ask who you were before you were born. You can speculate that you were some real person in a prior life, but there is no credible way to determine or prove that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said that science makes a methodological assumption that every observed event has a cause. That is correct. In fact, you seem to be making one of those distinctions without a difference, since scientific theories are always natural physical (causal) explanations of natural phenomena. Note that the Big Bang is not an observed event, nor is it anything more than a theoretical extrapolation from the inflation that we observe. The fact is that we don't know whether there could, in some sense, be a prior event, because we cannot observe anything before that event, given the physical limitations on what we can observe. We measure time in terms of spatial relationships, so that's a hard limit. There is no sensible "before" to observe. It is like trying to ask who you were before you were born. You can speculate that you were some real person in a prior life, but there is no credible way to determine or prove that.

Again, that is incorrect. The difference that was explained to you is quite significant.

And why would it matter if the Big Bang was directly observed or not? Many events in the sciences are never directly observed, they are inferred by the evidence that the events cause. We have never directly observed an atom break.down through radioactive decay. But we can easily observe the evidence.

And when you use a phrase like "nor is it anything more than a theoretical extrapolation . . ." I doubt if you even understand the terminology that you use.

 

[Copernicus]

Again, that is incorrect. The difference that was explained to you is quite significant.

No, you did not "explain" anything at all. You contradicted nothing that I said. If you think you did, then explain the contradiction. Don't just keep insisting that there is one.

And why would it matter if the Big Bang was directly observed or not? Many events in the sciences are never directly observed, they are inferred by the evidence that the events cause. We have never directly observed an atom break.down through radioactive decay. But we can easily observe the evidence.

Again, that contradicts absolutely nothing I said. I gave the Big Bang as an example. Try saying something that contradicts what I said, and maybe we can discuss it.

And when you use a phrase like "nor is it anything more than a theoretical extrapolation . . ." I doubt if you even understand the terminology that you use.

Actually, it is you who doesn't seem to understand the plain language that I use. (You call it "terminology", but I have been using mostly plain English. Is that your problem?) The singularity that is posited as the origin of the Big Bang is extrapolated from our observation of cosmic background radiation and inflation. If you feel that that is wrong, then don't just say it is wrong. Explain why it is wrong. (Note that I am not using "extrapolate" in a technical mathematical sense, but in a more general sense--"estimate" or "conclude".)

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you did not "explain" anything at all. You contradicted nothing that I said. If you think you did, then explain the contradiction. Don't just keep insisting that there is one.




Again, that contradicts absolutely nothing I said. I gave the Big Bang as an example. Try saying something that contradicts what I said, and maybe we can discuss it.



Actually, it is you who doesn't seem to understand the plain language that I use. (You call it "terminology", but I have been using mostly plain English. Is that your problem?) The singularity that is posited as the origin of the Big Bang is extrapolated from our observation of cosmic background radiation and inflation. If you feel that that is wrong, then don't just say it is wrong. Explain why it is wrong. (Note that I am not using "extrapolate" in a technical mathematical sense, but in a more general sense--"estimate" or "conclude".)

Once again you do not understand why you statement that scientific methodology is based upon an assumption that all events have a cause. That is false. The whole of quantum mechanics refutes that. QM shows that at its base our universe is a probabilistic one, not a mechanical one. Radiometric decay is an example of this. We can calculate the odds of a particle decaying within a specific time period, but we can never say when a radioactive particle will decay. The half life of a particle will vary depending upon what specific particle it is. For example a U238 atom has a half life on the same order as the age of the Earth. C14 is only about 5,000 years in comparison. There is no apparent cause for their decay at any one time. It is far more accurate to say that the scientific method assume that there is a physical explanation for physical events. But that is not the same thing as a "cause".

 

[Copernicus]

Once again you do not understand why you statement that scientific methodology is based upon an assumption that all events have a cause. That is false. The whole of quantum mechanics refutes that. QM shows that at its base our universe is a probabilistic one, not a mechanical one. Radiometric decay is an example of this. We can calculate the odds of a particle decaying within a specific time period, but we can never say when a radioactive particle will decay. The half life of a particle will vary depending upon what specific particle it is. For example a U238 atom has a half life on the same order as the age of the Earth. C14 is only about 5,000 years in comparison. There is no apparent cause for their decay at any one time. It is far more accurate to say that the scientific method assume that there is a physical explanation for physical events. But that is not the same thing as a "cause".

You are really reading a lot of precise interpretations into what I wrote that have nothing whatsoever to do with my claim about observed events, and not all events. For example, the observations underpinning QM are experimental results, not the part of the discussion that interprets the results. QM does not show that our universe is a probabilistic one, because it isn't actually a coherent theory of cosmology. Probability calculations are used as a tool to describe events that are recorded or observed. The interpretation part of a scientific report provides a causal model for predicting future events. That is, if we do X, then Y will result, and here is why we think that happens. You are trying to put such a fine point on your interpretation of what I said that you went down a rabbit hole to mansplain science to me. For example, when you say that there is no apparent cause for the decay of a particle, I agree. Science does not tell us that there is no actual cause. We can still make reliable predictions about what we will observe over time, but we can't explain why yet.

 

[nPeace]

The title deed renders assurance of intervention by the state under certain circumstances, based upon applicable law and my past experience of knowing the state to have intervened in other cases. Before I continue, my guess is that you are using the title deed as an analogy for scripture (the Bible)?

You'd guess wrong.
The Greek term hupostasis is taken from /hypó - "under" and /hístēmi - "to stand" - properly, (to possess) standing under a guaranteed agreement ("title-deed"); (figuratively) "title" to a promise or property, i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is, "under a legal-standing") – entitling someone to what is guaranteed under the particular agreement.

The title deed is proof of ownership.
The Christian faith, is the title deed of what is hoped for. In other words, it's the proof - guaranteed assurance. It is the *evident demonstration of realities*, though not seen.

The one possessing faith has objective evidence for such realities.
This is not a title deed any government can claim legal ownership. It is given - not by any manmade institute, but by God. Galatians 5:22

Faith, therefore is not blind belief, but is solid assurance - a guarantee, of what is not yet seen. It is based on evidence. It is reasonable.
To demonstrate this...
(Romans 1:19, 20) 19 . . .what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

Notice.

• what may be known about God is clearly evident
• his invisible qualities are clearly seen
• they are perceived by the things made

Nothing there suggest blindly believing.
Also...
(Hebrews 3:4) Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

One can reasonably investigate the validity of that assertive statement.
Is there reason to blindly believe that things of more intricate design than a house needed no designer, or builder?
I think if requires blind belief, to think that the systems in the body which all function together so unitedly and purposefully, from one CPU, was not designed by a planner - an intelligent agent.

That's not even faith.
Do you think it's blind belief,? How would you describe it?

 

[nPeace]

No, I don’t claim to know everything, or even to know that “God does not exist”, or anything like that; the truth of that proposition would seem to be as unverifiable as that of the proposition that “God does exist”. I call that the antitheist viewpoint, and find it to be equally arrogant to the theistic stance. As an atheist, I only claim that I personally have no objective evidence for the existence of deity, nor does it appear that anyone else does.

You sound like someone I very much like to talk to.
You claim you personally have no objective evidence for the existence of deity, nor does it appear that anyone else does.
Thanks for sharing that. I think a good place to start then is to have a clear understanding of what objective evidence is exactly.
So, can you first explain what objective evidence is, and then can you give me the objective evidence for whale evolution.
I can't seem to get an answer on these forums.
I hope you can change that. I really do.

When we believe or “have faith”, we do so without evidence. I personally hold the theistic proposition that “there is a God…” in suspension until I have convincing evidence; in the absence thereof, I will not believe.

I am not sure, since I am not God, if atheist do this deliberately, or by impulse, driven by the treacherous heart we humans possess, but atheists alway tend to say things that suggest a biased agenda.
I'm not saying this is the case with you. I really don't know, but when you say, 'When we believe or “have faith”, we do so without evidence.', do you realize that you have included everyone, including scientists, as you try to describe something religious people hold to?

Scientists do believe. Do they believe without evidence?
Having faith, is not believing without evidence.

If a tight rope walker tells you to give him a challenge, and you do. If he accepts on the basis of knowledge of the conditions involved, do you say he believes or has faith he can walk that line, without evidence?

The reason that I argue for this viewpoint is connected to my personal history. I was once a Christian: raised Roman Catholic and “accepted Christ” as my personal savior and was again baptized ( this time by immersion) in my late twenties. I was “in the fold”, man. After a certain crisis in my life which appeared to be premised by my faith, I was compelled to reevaluate my belief system upon sound logical grounds with a focus upon answering the question of why I believed as I did. The result of said evaluation is my atheism.

I'm sure you are not the first. In fact, you might well be way up there in the hundreds or thousands... and you won't be the last.
Being raised a Catholic, you aren't far from atheism, and it might even be the wind behind your sails.
Think of it like this.
If you want to get close to the clouds, where do you go? To the bottom of the sea? No. You climb a mountain.
Your education matters. It's very important... along with other things, but to explain all that won't take a few words.

I do not necessarily want to make Christians into atheists. Needless to say, since I experienced a life crisis as well as personal injury which I believe was predicated by my Christian faith, I believe that Christian faith places the bearer of that faith in a position of being in danger for being deluded.

It has happened, and continue to happen.
However, I am just wondering if you think this of the Christian faith, in the first century... that is, if you know anything about the Gospels, and the writings of the apostles.

Thus, I argue against the faith not to make people anti-theistic or even atheistic, but to place them, and their theism if they want to retain it, upon sounder epistemic grounds than the Pauline faith which is suggested in Hebrews chapter 11. I would rather that Christians claim that “Christ” and “salvation” represent the bright hope that they cling to, as opposed to claiming an excessive “confidence”, a certainty or a conviction which would appear to be irrational for lack of appropriate evidence. A well-founded faith can be held relatively harmless, but an irrational faith poses a danger to the bearer, in my view. I want people to approach their faith on a sounder logical footing than they do, and I argue specific points to that effect, not to see them renounce the their faith lock, stock and barrel.

Thanks for sharing that.
I like that actually... if I an understanding you correctly.
It was a lot to swallow all at once, and I realize my brain hasn't been working too well lately.

Perhaps tell me a little about the Pauline faith which is suggested in Hebrews chapter 11. That might help a bit.

 

[nPeace]

Its not irrational. Just being pointed about it.

What's irrational is believing and having complete confidence in something that isn't established to be true.

Like the theory of evolution?

Faith is essentially the equivalent to taking a gsmble on lady luck. No guarantees. .

I know, you don't think that going to court and telling the judge the guy on the witness stand stole your wallet, will cause the judge to take you seriously.
So, until you can produce something more than empty assertions, don't expect them to be taken seriously.

 

[Zwing]

The title deed is proof of ownership.
The Christian faith, is the title deed of what is hoped for.

Ah, now I see your analogy, @nPeace; you liken the deed to Christian faith, as being evidence or “proof” of the truth of Christian hope. I question this, however, for if the faith of a man is to be accepted as proof of that which is not evident, then the faith of every man must be accepted in like manner. The problem is, not every man is a Christian man, and not every man has the Christian faith. There are immediately obvious conflicts between such “proofs by faith”, for not all faiths are Christian faiths, and indeed some faiths contradict Christian faith.

It is the *evident demonstration of realities*, though not seen.

The one possessing faith has objective evidence for such realities.

Is, then, the Muslim’s faith an *evident demonstration of realities”; does it prove the truth of what the Muslim hopes for? You know now, that orthodox Muslims have faith that only true Muslims who have proper Foundational (inward) Faith (īmān fiṭrī) will eventually attain Jinnah (heaven) with God, and this means that unbelievers (kuffarin), including Christians, along with others including Muslims who have Legal (outward) Faith (īmān sharʿī) but not said īmān fiṭrī, will not. Now, according to your principle that faith provides evidence, or rather ὑπόστασις (hupóstasis), as you say (actually, in the Koine Greek of the NT, the correct pronunciation of this had become “hypostasis”, as it is in the Demotic Greek of today, rather than the Archaic and Classical Greek pronunciation of “hupostasis”…there were certain pronunciation shifts which occurred in Greek during the Hellenistic period), the Muslim’s faith must be viewed as providing evidence for his hopes and the teachings of his religion as well. So then, does the Muslim have “objective evidence” for the truth of his hopes of a exclusively privileged existence in al-Akhira (the afterlife) which evidence accrues to him by the fact of his faith? This would seem to contradict the Christian’s hypostatic assurance of his hopes, don’t you think? Do you see the problem with citing human faith as evidence for the objects of that faith?

 

[nPeace]

Ah, now I see your analogy, @nPeace; you liken the deed to Christian faith, as being evidence or “proof” of the truth of Christian hope.

Not quite.
The apostles knew the truth about Jesus. Yet, Jesus repeatedly counseled them regarding faith.
Faith is not the possession of all people, Paul said. Faith is acquired, and built.
One possessing faith is sure of the realities. How?

Let me see if I can explain.
How does a baby know its mother?
Let me know if you see the connection.

I question this, however, for if the faith of a man is to be accepted as proof of that which is not evident, then the faith of every man must be accepted in like manner. The problem is, not every man is a Christian man, and not every man has the Christian faith. There are immediately obvious conflicts between such “proofs by faith”, for not all faiths are Christian faiths, and indeed some faiths contradict Christian faith.

faith of a man is to be accepted as proof of that which is not evident?
Sorry, you didn't understand what said. My apologies if I was not clear, or mixed my words.

I couldn't have said, or meant "faith of a man is to be accepted as proof of that which is not evident" when I said that the realities are evident.
The other thing is, I'm not sure you are describing faith in the correct context here.
What you seem to be describing, reminds me of when people describe love. It's anything, but love.
Love is not what people call love. It's what love is. Likewise faith. Faith is not what people call faith.

Paul describes love, in 1 Corinthians 13, and he describes faith, in Hebrews 11.
Faith is not different, depending on who possesses it. One either has faith or they don't.
However, there can be different degrees of faith - from 'little' faith to 'more' faith. Or one can have very strong.

Is, then, the Muslim’s faith an *evident demonstration of realities”; does it prove the truth of what the Muslim hopes for? You know now, that orthodox Muslims have faith that only true Muslims who have proper Foundational Faith (īmān fiṭrī) will eventually attain Jinnah (heaven) with God, and this means that unbelievers (kuffarin), including Christians, along with others including Muslims who have Legal (outward) Faith (īmān sharʿī) but not said īmān fiṭrī, will not. Now, according to your principle that faith provides evidence, or rather ὑπόστασις (hupóstasis), as you say (actually in the Koine Greek of the NT, the correct pronunciation of this had become “hypostasis” rather than the Archaic and Classical Greek pronunciation of “hupostasis”), the Muslim’s faith must be viewed as providing evidence for his hopes and the teachings of his religion as well. So then, does the Muslim have “objective evidence” for the truth of his hopes of a exclusively privileged existence in al-Akhira (the afterlife) which is accrued to him by the fact of his faith? This would seem to contradict the Christian’s hypostatic assurance of his hopes, don’t you think?

I probably wouldn't have understood it either.
It's not something we grasp on a superficial level.

I'll try my best to explain.
Earlier, I referred to what Paul said... "faith is not a possession of all people." (2 Thessalonians 3:2)

Suppose I have a strong belief in something - a really strong belief. To the point where I might kill for it. Is that faith?
It might be described by some, as faith, and it might well be in one sense, but it might not be the faith Paul referred to.

For example, suppose I just took my son, and said, I'm going to sacrifice him to God.
Abraham took his son, and was willing to sacrifice him to God.
The Bible says Abraham had faith.
Does that mean I have faith? What do you think?

It's not the easiest thing to explain, and yeah, my brain isn't at full click, so let me sleep on it.

 

[Zwing]

It's not the easiest thing to explain, and yeah, my brain isn't at full click, so let me sleep on it.

Okay, to be continued. I have to be up at five, so it’s bedtime for bonzo here, as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are really reading a lot of precise interpretations into what I wrote that have nothing whatsoever to do with my claim about observed events, and not all events. For example, the observations underpinning QM are experimental results, not the part of the discussion that interprets the results. QM does not show that our universe is a probabilistic one, because it isn't actually a coherent theory of cosmology. Probability calculations are used as a tool to describe events that are recorded or observed. The interpretation part of a scientific report provides a causal model for predicting future events. That is, if we do X, then Y will result, and here is why we think that happens. You are trying to put such a fine point on your interpretation of what I said that you went down a rabbit hole to mansplain science to me. For example, when you say that there is no apparent cause for the decay of a particle, I agree. Science does not tell us that there is no actual cause. We can still make reliable predictions about what we will observe over time, but we can't explain why yet.

You were the one that made the "mansplaining" necessary. It looks as if you still have not learned from your mistakes.