This premise is empirically false, hence the remainder of the kalam argument is worthless.
Let me get this straight : You are saying that something can cause itself?
You are saying that "things happen" without being caused to happen?
You are, in effect, telling us that you believe that some things do not have causes, and yet therefore perform actions...all without something acting upon it?
Oh, this is rich.
This is gonna be a good thread....
Sauron
Indeed - demonstrably so.
The cause merely hasn't been discovered, yet.
No. There is no cause for a particular atom decaying at a particular moment. It just goes "boing!" all by itself.
Apparently, according to MHGinTN's posts (especially #337, q.v.) you are insufficiently versed in the study of physics, as he ably corrected you in your faulty understanding of radioactive decay.
Actually, he simply raised much the same objection as you did, albeit with less extravagance on the font attributes. There is no hidden, unknown cause for the decay of a particular atom at a particular moment. I am sorry if this offends you, but causality was never provable to begin with, so we should hardly be surprised to find exceptions now and then.
Ad hominems are also not needed.
An ad hominem argument would be if I somehow attacked you for your personal qualities or characteristics. Characterizing your statements as wrong or irrelevant, as the case may be, can therefore hardly be an ad hominem, since it is directed st your statements, and not at you personally. Along with QM material, would you also like me to recommend a logic textbook?