The paper presents a revised view of quantum mechanics centered on the notion (“genuine fortuitousness”) that the click in a counter is a totally lawless event, which comes by itself.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 7596312096
The positions above are regarded as part of a general argument against cosmological contingency, rejection of the universe as needing a cause. As the second source above also states,The claim that contingent beings or series of contingent beings must have a sufficient explanation could be denied without contradiction. It therefore cannot be a necessary truth. A series (whether finite or infinite) could have no cause/reason/explanation at all. (Bertrand) Russell points to Quantum mechanics as evidence for his argument:
“The physicists assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have no cause.”
https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com ... -argument/
"If the universe is not contingent then we don’t need God to explain its existence."
Taking the position that this argument against contingency actually supports it instead, I offer the following argument for consideration.
(emphasis mine)Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science.
https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolu ... d-religion
When the physicists invoked by Russell, who in turn invoke physics itself, conclude that quantum transitions have no cause, the most they can conclude from physics is that such transitions have no physical cause. This is to say that they have no naturalistic cause, that the laws of nature are not involved in their occurrence.
Think of physics as being like a computerized calendar before Y2K. In that system there was no 21st century, no way for the system to go beyond Dec. 31, 1999. So after that date the system would have defaulted back to Jan. 1, 1900 because it couldn't go on to Jan. 1, 2000. In the same way, physics has no way to look beyond the physical, beyond the natural. So when something----like the quantum transitions mentioned above----occurs without the involvement of physical laws, physics defaults to the conclusion that the occurrence was caused by nothing because it can't go on to the conclusion that the occurrence was caused by something beyond physical laws.
To argue against a God of the Gaps, you have to assume that nothing happens outside the realm of physical cause and effect. In the source I cite above, Russell and his physicists assert that something does. On that basis, I propose it arguable that the phenomenon of "genuine fortuitousness", the physical occurrence of the physically uncaused, is in reality only assumed fortuitousness and constitutes evidence of a power greater than the dictates of naturalistic materialism.
