Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[polymath257]

Given what we know of quantum field theories, it is far more likely that things pop into existence without cause.

What limits this process? The size of Planck's constant. Subatomic particles are far more likely to pop into and out of existence than larger things. Electron-positron pairs are more likely to pop into existence than Z-particles or massive quarks.

And, this appears to be simply a fundamental aspect of 'nothing'--i.e, the vacuum. Other than the rather self-referential 'explanation' that the laws of physics say that such probabilities exist (which is more of a description, than a derivation), this seems to be a bare fact about the universe we live in.

Furthermore, we have good, observational and theoretical reasons to think this lack of causality is basic to the nature of our universe. Causality as most people think about it derives from an average of these probabilistic events and isn't itself fundamental.

It seems that you appeal to a number of things as causes in this.  As well, you by nothing (like L. Krauss) you seem to mean something rather than no thing.  Where I would quibble, is that I do not believe that the laws of physics is a thing in and of it self.  It is a description for the logical way in which things behave (Note: not nothing... well  perhaps for some people). 

And I agree. When there is a vacuum, there is NO THING in that vacuum. And yet, that vacuum can 'decay' and produce THINGS. So, yes, Some *thing* can come from no *thing*.

I'm going to need more than a claim, to drop the belief in causality.  I'm not willing to just take it on faith, because as we can see, there is some equivocating which is sometimes taken advantage of.  Personally, I need a testimony of what was done, what was observed, and then specifics as to how it is determined to be without cause.   For some skeptics I have heard, even the testimony of others would not be enough for such an extraordinary claim.  Some may not believe, if they saw it themselves.  The problem I have, is that this is the type of claim, that involves more than simple observation.

Yes, it does. It is the correlation between identical situations that shows a violation of causality. A good read for this is a little article by Mermin 'Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks?'

http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/lectures/Mermin%20longer.pdf

Mermin is, by the way, a very respected physicist with a long publication record and a very frequently used book on Solid State Physics.