Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

There are no example in this universe of something from nothing. It is simply impossible. 

QM indeterminate particles are not an example of something uncaused. RR posted previously:

Quantum mechanics merely describe what takes place at the quantum level.  It makes no reference to causes, but that does not imply that there are no causal entities involved.
Feser hypothesizes that perhaps Oerter understands the law of causality to refer to some sort of deterministic cause, and since quantum mechanics are supposedly indeterministic (a disputed interpretation), the law of causality could not apply.  Feser notes that “[t]he principle of causality doesn’t require that.  It requires only that a potency be actualized by something already actual; whether that something, whatever it is, actualizes potencies according some sort of pattern –deterministic or otherwise — is another matter altogether.”

The fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics has not identified causeless effects or invalidated the causal principle.  For any event to occur it must first have the potential to occur, and then have that potential actualized.  If that potential is actualized, it “must be actualized by something already actual,”[2] and that something is what we identify as the cause. https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...principle/

Bad link.  This may be Feser and Roadie's understanding but it is not that of science.  There is a vanishingly small probability that local causes could yield a better prediction of events than quantum theory does, but it is so small as to be considered negligible.  As such, the theory that these events are uncaused provides a better explanation of these events than any theory in which they are locally caused (i.e. actualized from an existing potential).  So, no, it isn't simply that we don't know what the actual cause is, but rather that such a cause would yield a less accurate description of events than assuming no cause does.  This effectively rules out local causes of the type to which you, Feser, and Roadie are referring.  The exception to this is that it doesn't rule out non-local causes such as those in Bohmian mechanics, but in that case I would suggest that the burden is on the non-local advocate to demonstrate, at minimum, that such causes can coherently be described.  I've read Bohm and don't find his arguments for a non-local causation compelling or well argued.  If you have some other non-local theory, then I suggest you present it.  Otherwise, the science seems to be that these events are uncaused.  (I'll also note in passing that Roadie and Feser appear to be misusing the concept of potency, or, perhaps more accurately, using it as a buzzword without examining the content.)

The point was the causal principle. The quantum field provides the potency for the particle to appear and disappear and another reappear. Something actual from something actual. A causal link. It makes no sense to say the particle's appearance is uncaused. In fact, the whole characterization that it is uncaused seems to be solely for the purpose of coming up with something that is uncaused to make a philosophical/religious point. It where/when it will appear is simple indeterminate--we know that it will.