That is not a legitimate uncaused event. All that can be said is that the cause is unknown. There is probably nothing in the known universe that is in the final analysis uncaused. Every atom was caused.
We do not experience first causes. Science, however, has posited a first cause ( the Big Bang) as a means of extricating itself from the dilemma of irreducability.
Once accepted, the dynamics of this first cause become paramount. Could the Big Bang have produced any of an infinite variety of universes? Not according to any serious astrophysicist.
How, then, do we understand the cause of those principles? Are they inherent? In what?
Science is about more than observation. It is also about unraveling raw data to get at the underlying principles that steer data in a given direction. This is the essential problem with evolutionists who refuse to acknowledge any possibility of intentional design.
Evolution is a perfectly good way of understanding change. The nature of the change is not, however, either predetermined or out-of-bounds. Evolution scientists who want us to swallow whole the notion that change is a spontaneous eruption must also believe that fire produces salamanders.
BTW Enuf with the guff about random chance. There are times when a double entendre is intentional and intentionality is what this scrum is all about.
Was every atom intelligently designed?
Science proposed the big bang to explain the cosmic microwave background and the observed expansion of the universe.
Could the Big Bang have produced any of an infinite variety of universes? Not according to any serious astrophysicist.
Since I take it you're not a serious astrophysicist, please provide a source for this.
I'm sorry, no. It is not that the cause is unknown, there is no cause. Causality is simply not a universal requirement, regardless of how much that offends our sensibilities or our requirements for consistency.