If you're going to actually address an argument, make sure you get the quote right: "That causality is in question is something that's existed ever since the beginning of QM"
I've repeated essentially the same thing countless times: QM challenges our notions of classic, deterministic causality." Not there is "no causality in QM" or even that "there is no deterministic causality." QM has some deterministic interpretations, but, as I already addressed early, that they are deterministic doesn't really ease our doubt about classic causality, especially when even something like decoerhence (which explains why there is an appearance of a wavefunction collapse) can't even be measured. So, even there, where is the causality in the wake of no predictions?
FWIW, I mostly side with decoherence and Many-Worlds, which are both deterministic interpretations, but that the exact nature of causality is still dubious within them is undeniable.
Most of your post was just about how such fence-sitting is a no-no in philosophy. Again, I don't really care. That classic causality in QM and outside the universe is either true or not true is not to say we must be settled on the matter ourselves when the matter is not settled. I'll take Hume's "wait and see approach." In the meantime, I can assume causality holds at the level at which I experience life (which may just be an illusion created by my inability to see things working on the quantum level), and reserve any further judgments until I hear from the people that actually do this for a living (meaning, people other than Craig).