[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I follow the evidence. If you claim that all swans are white because you have seen thousands and thousands of white swans and not a single black swan, and I find a black swan, that is evidence that you are wrong. Science is based on falsification, not deductive reasoning.

Falsification is a subset of deductive reasoning, LG.

Further, as it applies to this discussion, again, you're attempting to build an argument from something entirely speculative. The double-slit experiment is widely open to interpretation with respect to its implications for causality, and most interested parties don't share the conclusions that you seem to think are set in stone. Sorry, but you're on shaky ground, and have no basis for pretending like you "proven" that there's no need for a creator. Even if your thesis were correct, it still wouldn't get you off the arche problem hook.

[LeGrande]

Falsification is a subset of deductive reasoning, LG.

I agree. Do you disagree with my statement that you can't prove a scientific theory, you can only falsify it?

The double-slit experiment is widely open to interpretation with respect to its implications for causality, and most interested parties don't share the conclusions that you seem to think are set in stone.

Well then use the particle - anti particle spontaneous creation example, or the quantum eraser, or the Theory of Relativity. I especially like the Theory of Relativity with events happening in different orders depending on your frame of reference : ) That really messes with causality.

Even if your thesis were correct, it still wouldn't get you off the arche problem hook.

Arche problem?