...but it is logically more consistent to assume that there are uncaused events. It’s certainly consistent with experiment.
This is twice you have made this assertion without any proof. Something from nothing! Now, may I ask you to do an exercise. Try to grasp the concept of nothingness...no time, no space, no matter, no energy...Nothing! The idea of the universe, or anything coming to be out of nothing is worse than magic. At least a magician has a hat and a rabbit. But you have nothing....out of that you create the universe? Explain this to me from a naturalistic materialistic world view. I think if you are honest you will not assert the maddness of a universe springing from nothing. Observationally we never see things come from nothing. You don't sit in your living room and watch Jack Baur on '24' and suddenly, with nothing to account for it, a porcupine appears between you and the television. You don't think about porcupines obscuring your view of the next killing by Jack Baur....it just never happens. Yet you assert it could happen. This principle is consistently verified by scientists, policemen, engineers, mothers....we just don't need to worry about such things. The evidence points away from your assertion, not toward agreement with it.
Now, these quantum particles, if they exist, and many physists think they do not, do not come from nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people think when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. To the contrary, it is a sea of fluctuating energy locked up in the vacuum-an area rich in physical structure and can be described by physical laws. The particles, if they exist, are thought to arise by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. So, it is not a good example of something coming from nothing, or eminating without cause.
All you do is push back the question of creation one step. Now you have to explain how the fluctuating sea of energy came to be. If quantum physics operates in the domain described by quantum physics you cannot legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of the domain. You must provide something transendent of the domain to explain quantum physics. It becomes circular reasoning and defeats itself philosophically and logically.
Any system of thought that assumes causation is a necessity leads to an infinite regress.
Assuming that causation is not necessary may be counterintuitive, but many things in physics are counterintuitive.
So you can choose between counterintuitive physics or a logical absurdity.