An uncaused cause

[Phil]

How does that sound like type II is the default and how would you explain it?

I wouldn't. Like I said, the "capture the electron" part gave me the impression that Type III occurs when when the nucleus is bombarded with the electron or otherwise comes in close range to one, rather than capturing one from its own orbit. A cursory google search reveals it not to be the case.

By the way, you do know what the theist response to this is right?
"Just because humans don't know the cause doesn't mean no cause exists. God knows the cause. In fact, god is he cause. He chooses in which way the nucleus is supposed to decay and he doesn't tell us because he works in mysterious ways".

Last time I checked the KCA is an argument for the existence of god. You telling me that the conclusion has to be believed before the premise is valid? IOW, the KCA is valid because god exists and you think anyone except a brain dead fundamentalist is going to accept that as a valid premise?

---

Since our resident "confused" yet deconverted poster was asked a direct question about beta decay yet chose to claim I never asked yet assumed he or she was a Christian I am writing this post to eliminate all doubt that the Kallam Cosmological Argument has an idiotic premise and therefore is invalid.

There was absolutely no need for that. Please don't start threads just to carry on whatever vendettas you may have against people. If you can't think of something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Not a vendetta. A vendetta would have been followed by no argument against the KCA.