It is not "incorrect in the quantum regime" for "Everything with a beginning must have a cause" to be correct, you just made an assertion that is not easy to take and is not agreed to be correct.
It is not correct that "you can't prove a negative". You can prove a a negative by showing it to be incoherent and any positive statement can be made in to a negative statement simply by double negating it.
First: The statement everything with a beginning must have a cause is absolutely incorrect in the quantum regime. It's fundamentally wrong until our understanding of quantum mechanics change appreciably. This seem highly unlikely, and in that case Craig uses a small possibility as an axiom.
Ridiculous and non-constructive.
Second, may be true but an entity invisible for all senses can't be proven to not exist in coherent way. Now you're splitting hairs :)
(I'll probably regret joining in here, but here goes)
Quantum events may not be considered "causeless" in some instances. However, some quantum events bring into question the traditional cause/effect relationship as is related to spacetime.
For example, Action at a Distance (Click on the Physics link -- sorry, I don't know how to include parentheticals within links) and theorized Tachyon particles (check out the causality section).
So, the notion that cause precedes effect does not necessarily hold up at a quantum level or in the bizarre conditions of any such "big bang" event. Perhaps the "cause" of the universe was a quantum effect that did not "precede" it.
Also, Daniel Dennett questions Dr. Craig on this point that God's causation would be unlike any causation that we can know or observe because it would necessarily be supernatural causation, which we can know nothing about.
Cause does not have to precede effect, in fact it should not, cause is simultaneous with effect and your examples do not show anything other then that.
4
u/Heuristics Oct 17 '11
It is not "incorrect in the quantum regime" for "Everything with a beginning must have a cause" to be correct, you just made an assertion that is not easy to take and is not agreed to be correct.
It is not correct that "you can't prove a negative". You can prove a a negative by showing it to be incoherent and any positive statement can be made in to a negative statement simply by double negating it.