This means that the question can only concern our cosmos, which came into being with the so-called Big Bang.

All masses (mass physics) consist of substances. These are controlled by laws. Laws have no causes; they are immanent in substances.

The states in the empty spaces (the vacuum in space) - in the universe can create virtual substances. These are also controlled by laws.

So, all substances have their own laws. They are one (inseparable).

When one substance combines with another, a new one is formed. This is not the sum of the two original ones, but one that also runs according to its inner, exact laws, which are formed through the merger.

Every change (adding or removing) to the substances changes their inherent laws accordingly.

The universe did not arise (since it contains everything, it cannot have arisen from something), nor the basic substances (however you want to call them, e.g., energy).

That is why it makes no sense for religious people to believe that God is the first mover. Because the substances themselves “flow” internally due to their laws and are usually exposed to interactions.

In the past people believed that God created the world. And also, what you encounter in life. So, they hardly investigated any further - they just took it that way.

But in fact, the laws made it all come into being.

Now there are quantum physicists who claim that objective coincidence prevails in elementary particles, for example because they do not “know” what to do.

I mean that they already "know" because it is set out in their inherent laws.

As I said: every substance in the universe has its own laws. So also, the elementary particles, which we describe as particles / waves.

The decisive factor will be the interaction with the respective environment.

When elementary particles are measured, the superpositions immediately become a discrete position. It is a natural process that cannot be changed.

Every elementary particle in quantum systems collapses during a measurement. The previously "infinite" possibilities of the particle are reduced to a precisely defined state. As I said, this always happens naturally when there is an interaction with something else.

This is called the collapse of the wave function.

The quantum particles / waves are therefore not free in the sense of objective chance, but dependent on the laws contained in them.

General: If a substance has changed, then one should not always look for a cause in the sense of a causality outside of this substance. Because the changes can, as in an atom, be caused by a legally determined point in time within the atom.

It is said: since the exact time of the decay at the half-life of atoms cannot be predicted exactly, this cannot be calculated. That is absolutely correct. The reason is because one does not know - and probably will not know - all the laws within the atomic structure because of the interactions of the substances.

Why one looks for causalities, causes, is obvious: For daily life and survival, one should know why something has happened and prepare accordingly for the future. (In order to survive, research into the cause of an atomic disintegration, for example, is not really necessary.)

The idea that the respective substances are controlled by internal laws that structure them never came before. Because it was believed that they only changed according to the factors outside of them that were the cause of the causalities. So, the role of internal laws was not seen.

Therefore, one came to the conclusion: If no cause could be recognized - that is, one did not recognize the laws - one could not speak of determinism  either.

So, it was concluded from this that things can move freely (e.g., objective coincidence) - without a determining cause.

Or one believed that God - or some mystical cause - was the mover.

This then generated statements such as: There is an objective coincidence.

Coincidence  is something that lawfully fell to an object. That means that there are laws in the object and these interact with that of what has fallen. This creates other laws.

Anyone who claims that there is “objective coincidence” should think carefully through their claim with regard to these facts.

From a psychological point of view, it could be a desire to refute determinism.