Atheist claims beta decay has no cause. Quick google search shows otherwise. Can atheists debate without being congenital liars?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

In an attempt to undermind the Cosmological Argument, the atheist claimed atoms decayed for no reason at all. I knew this was a lie, but I googled it and it says Beta decay happens because an atom has too many protons or neutrons.

[OfDeath]

You can calculate the probability of atomic decay in certain timeframe but we can’t calculate exactly when that will happen. It may be a kind of randomness is fundamental to reality or it may be that we just don’t know enough about quantum mechanics yet.

Even though the reason why atoms decay is because they had an unstable number of neutrons and protons, we still can’t determine when the decay will happen and that is the part which is said to be random.

So it seems as if you have misunderstood that particular atheist’s argument and accusing atheists of being “congenital liars” is a reductio ad hominem fallacy and makes you come across as pugnacious.

In my opinion, I don’t see how something like atomic decay having a scientific reason would be favourable to the cosmological argument anyway. It’s a non sequitur.

[strateguy632]

They can't. look at lazy hypocrits, for "evolution without god" the atheists are too lazy to say reasons just wrote here "do a search" faith someone else proved but also

lie "no evidence god" but same as they already said... "do a search" can find evidence god.

[Dargil]

Struggling to care. Failing.

[MikeRJ]

What is an "undermind?"