No. Radioactive decay is spontaneous and uncaused, and by that I do not mean that the cause is currently unknown - I mean that it is provably the case that decay is uncaused. If there were a proximate cause for the instantaneous decay of an atom, even an unknown cause, the experimental results would be different from what they are.
Causality is simply not a universal rule, necessary always and everywhere. Hence, any argument that relies on causality as a hard and fast rule, as the kalam argument does, is plainly dead on arrival.
One of the rare cases in which experimentation destroys a fundamental intuitive axiom. It drives philosophers wild.
But then it is intuitively obvious to any honest thinker that there has to be at least one instance on an uncaused caused. The fact that we can observe uncaused events in the natural world simply backs up unbiased intuition.
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? ;)