uncaused causes

[Phil]

Once again, someone has brought up the first cause argument (cosmological argument) to me to try to "prove" the existence of god. Specifically they used the Kalam Cosmological Argument made famous by that moron William Lane Craig. Once again as always I pointed out the stupidity of it's initial premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. In general I like to ask them how they know this, have they seen everything that exists? but this time the girl who was using the KCA was actually my physical chemistry lab partner back in the 80s (how she became Christian I was afraid to ask). Since she was obviously educated I didn't want to use such a cute dismissal of her argument so I asked her my oft used backup question which nobody ever answered except to claim that it isn't an uncaused cause (no reason why was ever given). I asked her what causes beta decay. To my surprise she actually gave an answer she said it is caused when the proton/neutron ratio in the nucleus is too high. I agreed but then I told her my but clause (there is always a but). What she said is true of electron emission which is one of three forms of beta decay. There are two other forms, one is positron emission and the other is electron capture. Both of those occur when the proton/neutron ratio in the nucleus is too low. So again I asked her, what causes beta decay. She promised to answer when she sees me next week and before she left she thanked me for posing an interesting question to her. To be honest, I don't expect an answer but I do not expect her to ever try uttering that idiotic argument again.

What are your views on the KCA other than it's wrong and why do you think this argument has been so convincing to so many people?