Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

Quantum superposition can create situations in which cause-and-effect relationships between events are not well-defined…. That doesn’t mean they don’t exit.  Ether A caused B or B caused A or B kind of caused A and A kind of caused B.

<<This provides an extraordinarily high quality source of pseudorandom bits for virtually any practical purpose.  Certainly for playing online card games!>>

Elroch, what you really don't seem to get; and by now, I'm irritated enough by you to call all your patronisation and assumptive behaviour for what it is: the card games one finds online are run according to simplistic algorithms. However, it's debateable whether a pseudo-random input based on the digits of pi is really random or only pseudo-random.

It's deterministic! Now reconsider whether it is "debateable" whether it is random.

You may have a fixed opinion in one direction or another

See above and note opinions can be right.

but it or similar things can be susceptible to counter-arguments. You can deny that but that would just be you playing God again.
Some things are true. Observing this is not "playing God".
I worked out for myself, long ago, that a random number engine really needs a random input, which it can read, to be a true, random number generator.

A deterministic generator is not truly random. With random input, you can easily produce random output (eg use it raw). For example, an excellent way to generate randomness is to apply an analog-digital convertor to noisy environmental signals such as radio noise or heat.

Interestingly, this technique is used in modern Intel processors, as I discovered a while back.

Intel high quality entropy source RNG

With a pseudorandom number generator, typically you feed it a seed which itself can be random. It is only when you extract (significantly) more pseudorandom bits than the number of seed bits that the pseudorandomness can realistically be detected.

I am not sure whether you are referring to this inputting of a seed, or inputting as much randomness as you are extracting (when it becomes easy).

That remains the case but for a single application, it's doubtful whether a fairly complex algorithm that chooses the nth digit of pi would be discernible as different and thus only pseudo-random. I repeat that that's for a single application of the process.

If you consider "seeding" in this case to be the set of different ways you extract bits from pi (eg the seed might very simply indicate the gap between the bits you use (eg every 10422th bit), then it is only feasible to detect the pseudorandomness if you use it to generate a lot more bits than the size of the seed.

More economical use of the bits of pi could be achieved by having more complex ways to extract bits than merely "every n'th". But you still have the issue that if you generate a lot of bits, it is just about feasible to crack. 

The practicality is another matter though. Suppose you seed wit random numbers N and M up to 1000000, then use every N'th bit of pi starting with the M'th, then a cracker would need to check a trillion sequences against your generated bits to figure out which one it is. 

There is probably something better than the digits of pi to use - these take quite a lot of effort to calculate - only the first 62 trillion have been calculated!) If so, you can increase the range of M and N (and perhaps add another letter to make it harder still).

Impossible really to prove or disprove because, like God, the concept of determinism is axiomatic. Scientifically it would seem incorrect, however.