Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[polymath257]

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.

Technically, the field doesn't *provide* the potential for a particle. It *is* the potential for a particle. So, you are saying, in essence, that the particle is caused by its potential to exist.

The appearance is uncaused: whether a particle appears and where/when it appears is not determined by anything prior to that appearance. The field is just a fancy way of describing the possibility that a particle will appear. That's it.

In radioactivity, the potential for a decay is there once the nucleus is formed. But *when* that nucleus will decay is not determined by anything prior to the decay. Otherwise identical nuclei will decay at different times.

So, again, the *time* of the decay is uncaused. We can find the probability of decay in any time interval. But there is nothing that determines whether the particle decays now or in a billion years.