Belief and Knowledge

[FatAndFaithless]

=
I can work with that, yes that is what we would expect. The issue is, at what point in time are you justified in asserting that it is a non local cause? Throughout the history of science the purported 'unexplainable' phenomena of the world have been able to be more well understoof and explained and defined using very naturalistic and "local" explanations. When it comes to quantum randomness, how are you any more qualified to use that as a data point in your favor than the person claiming that lightning suggests a hidden reality beyond our observation?

In the case of quantum randomness you have a theorem which is accepted to be true which states quantum randomness cannot be explained by any theory of local hidden variables. You have no such theorem for lightning.

In effect science has concluded that there are events which happen, which cannot have local causes. Isn't that something atheists claim we should observe if God exists?

I don't know what atheists are claiming that, I simply said I could work with your defintion, although you didn't really define what "local causes" are. And I'd be reluctant to make summarizations "in effect" of theorems on the most complex and uncertain area of science. At this point I don't know, you don't know, and scientists don't know or claim to know. There is absolutely nothing about not knowing that suggests a God in any way shape or form.

And I don't know why you're claiming that Bell's theorem is some sort of universally accepted law in science, opinions on it have very wide ranges including many criticisms of the theorem. Especially notable because according to wikipedia (not the font of knowledge but about as deep as you or I can get with our lack of specific expertise)

Bell test experiments to date overwhelmingly violate Bell's inequality.