1. Prove your assertion.
2. If decay happens at a known and constant rate, if it is a predictable event, then something inherent to itself (it doesn't have to be a "proximate cause" as you said) has acted to cause the decay. We just haven't (yet) determined what the cause may be.
3. Objects stay in motion unless acted upon. Objects stand still unless acted upon. Decay occurs because of a pre-existing cause. If you don't know what that cause is...then it doesn't imply there is no cause. You just don't know what the cause is.
4. Are you now going to switch sides again and assert that the "experts" (remember, the ones you dissed in post #328) are to be believed, and that you now believe their opinions carry weight? ;)
I am not sure what you would consider proof - would you like me to solicit some recommendations for physics textbooks where you can learn QM?
If decay happens at a known and constant rate, if it is a predictable event, then something inherent to itself (it doesn't have to be a "proximate cause" as you said) has acted to cause the decay.
You are inartfully conflating two separate propositions - the decay of an individual atom is a completely unpredictable event, which is not obviated by the fact that we can draw statistical conclusions about groups of atoms. The decay of an atom is not dependent on any prior state or event - it has no cause. It is an uncaused event, which is why it's impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay. I can tell you, from a statistical standpoint, how many atoms will have decayed out of some group at some point in time, but I cannot tell you which atoms will have decayed by that time. Nobody can.
Objects stay in motion unless acted upon. Objects stand still unless acted upon. Decay occurs because of a pre-existing cause.
Two non-sequiturs and an incorrect assertion.
If you don't know what that cause is...then it doesn't imply there is no cause. You just don't know what the cause is.
No, I'm telling you, there is no cause, not even an unknown one. It's not that nobody knows the cause - the problem is that we know there is no cause.
Are you now going to switch sides again and assert that the "experts" (remember, the ones you dissed in post #328) are to be believed, and that you now believe their opinions carry weight?
I am rather discriminatory when it comes to "thinkers". When thinkers propose things to be true that are known to be false, I tend to consider them less than fine with respect to that particular topic. In this case, the world's "finest thinkers" apparently do not include any physicists, who could readily explain to the "finest thinkers" that the proposition of universal causality is a false proposition.