It’s kinda hard not getting jaded when entitled people (or companies) expect commercial grade support for something you work on your free time for pennies or for free, and to top that usually are pretty abusive from the get go.

My simple uncontroversial claims

None of these is uncontroversial, C isn’t even well-defined. I’d argue that B is correct only if A is correct. And A cannot be correct, since it leads to multitude of cotnradictions, one of which I’m going to demonstrate.

It appears from context to be the first: the claim that indeterminism means events are not explained by their causes. But that’s just the definition of indeterminism

No, it most definitely is not. If you used this as a definition, I’m fairly certain that most physicists would absolutely not agree with your B.

If you deny that indeterminism means things aren’t determined by observable causes, then what does it mean?

Indeterminism means that if an experiment is repeated with the same parameters, there are no guarantees to get the same result. Nothing more than that.

Your definition implies that there needs to be a cause in the first place. And that is bordering on begging the question, because with that definition you are guaranteed to reach a point where there is something “unexplainable” (since there are infinite amount of layers), which can always be attributed to whatever supernatural thing you choose. There is absolutely no need for this to be the case.

In fact, you yourself quoted the textbook

the outcome is intrinsically random.

Emphasis mine. That means, there is no cause, it’s an intrinsic property of the theory, especially in Copenhagen interpretation, which is the status quo. As your definition implies a cause, it cannot apply here. There are other contradictions, but this one is simple and I only need one to show that the premise is flawed, and your other points rely on that.

you have not substantiated your claims with anything.

My only claim is that you are incorrect. There aren’t really too many papers written about that. (I hope) I’ve shown your premise to be false because of faulty definitions, what more would you need? None of the stuff you quoted is supporting you, and in fact contradicts you, unless we specifically assume that other people use the definition you’ve given, which, again, is already shown to be erroneous.

And indeterminism says that those natural things are not sufficient explanations of experimental results.

According to who, exactly? This is just not even remotely true.

If you want to continue this, link me the papers that have any support to what you are proposing, I’m tired of fighting vague, unsubstantiated claims and you dodging every point I try to make.

Go on then: what definition do they use?

Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.

You’re claiming in another comment to this thread that you have M.Sc., you should be aware of this, please stop wasting everyone’s time.

Slapping “quantum” in front of something generally makes it involve indeterminism (excepting the many-worlds interpretation)

Indeterminism is by no means non-natural, and it does not make things any less observable. We can observe quantum states just fine.

And as for

Yeah all the Bell stuff

“All the Bell stuff” doesn’t have anything to do with “Didn’t some quantum nondeterminism prove the existence of effects without a natural cause?”

And no, it didn’t. AFAIK there are exactly zero physicists who argue that.

You made a ludicrous claim, and are unable or unwilling to back it up even a bit, yet somehow you feel continuing this without anything to show is a good use of anyone’s time. If you are not going to make an actual argument, I do not see value in continuing this conversation, as all it does is make this thread more difficult to read for others who most likely are not very interested watching yet another internet argument sidethread.

There have been plenty of discoveries opposed by religion X. Those historically do not have significant impact on prevalence of such a religion.

I do think answers explaining why any answer to the original question suffers from logical fallacies are equally good to those that do try to get to the OP’s intent, and I think it is good to have both. I do think the literal answers are more “straight” (and I tend to go to the literate mode when talking about science), so that’s what I went up with.

That has very little to do with anything related to the arguments you’ve made before, and I am not interested in participating in a Gish Gallop.

That is not the definition that natural sciences use for natural. Going down that rabbit hole is completely meaningless, since we are no longer talking about science at that point.

In addition, if using your definition, nothing is natural according to our current understanding.

If they were, it has nothing to do with nature being supernatural. It just means that nature’s state is not locally real. That does not tie into religion in any objective way.

In addition, both of those articles are (slightly) wrong. There was a lenghty discussion about how in r/physics when they came out. The tl;dr is that it boils down to:

• locality
• realism
• independence of measurement

Pick two.

But that has no relevance to religion other than you can make either philosophical or religious argument out of anything.

No

Slapping “quantum” in front of something does not make it magic.

Science deals with the natural, gods are by definition supernatural.

Science can not either prove or disprove existence of supernatural. It may only erode the reasoning why supernatural should exist.

That reasoning is subjective, and as such, there are no definite answers to your question unless we add additional constraints.