My dear tialoc, I think you have missed the point there. The idea is not that there are contingent, random elements in the universe - this is quite a trivial point - of course there are quantum fluctuations of a finite, temporal nature that are random effects of the underlying quantum field.
However, just because the particle-antiparticle creation and annhilation is random does not mean it is uncaused. To see this is to ask a simple question, is it possible for there to be absolute nonexistence and that nonexistence to somehow have a quantum fluctuation? This is an absurdity, the only reason our part of the universe follows quantum laws is because there is an underlying quantum field that drives quantum behaviour. Take away the field and you will take away the cause of seemingly random fluctuations.
The wider point is that it is impossible to conclude that the cosmos, in its entirety, is finite without adding in a transcendent cause. This is a metaphysical fact. The universe is either eternal or transcendentally caused. (Incidently, even if the universe is absolute and infinite, that doesn't rule out transcendency per se at all either - it seems that a transcendent element is compatible with either scenario.)
No.
Read again.
I am talking about OBSERVATION.
We cannot claim that observation tells us that all events we observe have a cause.
No observable event causes anti-pairs to appear. Causality there is not observed.
No observable event causes atoms to decay.
You claim that it's the "quantum field" that causes it.
Except, that its behavior is not observable. Not even predictable. So you cannot observe (nor know) what event in the quantum field caused the event you observed.
So, basically, you are shifting the lack of perceived causality onto an entity that you cannot observe nor predict... and this lack of prediction (also known as randomness) implies that you cannot associate a prior event that caused an event in this entity that caused the event you observed.
To summarize:
You "observe" anti-pairs to appear. Randomly.
Either:
- This has no cause that you know of...
Or:
- This was caused by another event
What event in the quantum field caused it?
You do not know. Because it is not observable, otherwise it would not appear to be random.
Conclusion: you have observed an event without an observable causing event.
So I am not saying that something exists that has no cause.
What I am saying is that, either:
- You can always deterministically find the causal event for any event. Or...
- You cannot CLAIM to be able to observe that every event has a cause
Also, this other strong objection got completely ignored:
How can anyone, through elementary observation, have ever observed that an infinite series of whatever can never be self-caused or even causeless?
Or, in other words, how can anyone have ever observed an infinite series of anything at all, and thus infer any kind of properties from it? :S
Topic: Neo-atheism -- passing fad?