That is incorrect. A nucleus is instable and will decay if its configuration is able to transfer into one with less energy in it. The likelyhood of that to happen is easily caculable, as every quantum state that has a lower energy state in reach will decay into it within a time proportional to the energy difference on the average. The cause is there: the nuclei being in an "excited" state. Just as one can't.predict the point in time the decay will happen, just a probability for any given time interval doesn't make this decay happen "without a cause".

In general the claim there is "acausality" in quantum physics due to the random nature in the way most quantum systems react is not quite accurate. 1st of all for a quantum system to establish a quantum property randomly it has to interact with another. 2nd it has an internal state that establish the statistics of the outcome.

This does not make the Kamal argument valid but I think Ethan Siegel attacks a straw man here: it can't be claimed that the universe began its existance out of nothing. As far as physics is concerned it was always there. But it began at some point in time to evolve into the home of us as living beings. For that it needed a cause. Aside from bringing some God into play there is inflation theory which argues that the inflation state of space is instable like an atomic nuclei may be instable, so there is a probabilty at any given point in time that inflation stops. This fits nicely into the world of quantum things - however, the claim isn't falsifiable. We can't test it. As we can't test the existence of a God. If we are talking about either claim, we are talking metaphysics.