I'm not sure who said "every event has a cause," but they are wrong. Everything that undergoes change has a cause, yes, but that is very different from saying everything has a cause.

Another resource everyone should check out is this blog post discussing the cosmological argument (and clearing up lots of misconceptions about its premises) http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

Furthermore, there is a difference between something being uncaused and something having an indeterministic effect. As someone in the comments to that blog post says: "what does happen in the realm of quantum processes, is that a cause does not have a deterministic effect anymore, but a probabilistic effect."

In other words, there is a big difference between "random effect" and "uncaused effect". Just because scientists can't predict which direction a particle may go in does not mean it is uncaused anymore than the fact that I don't know which side a dice will land on means that it is uncaused.

I agree with you 180 Proof that at bottom there must be something uncaused and non-composite, something that is capable of actualizing everything else without itself needing to be actualized, something upon which everything, ultimately, depends, but itself has no dependencies.

But I don't think it is right to say that that contingent things are uncaused. For example: you and I are contingent, but we have immediate causes (our parents). Moreover, some argue that not only do contingent things have no power to create themselves, but they have no power to remain in existence without something else sustaining it (e.g. a purely actual actualizer or unmoved mover).

The physical world is contingent, yes, but there must be something at metaphysical rock bottom for anything to exist at all.

Most people are ignorant about lots of things, not just history so that shouldn't be surprising. However, I don't really think many people doubt that Jesus was at the very least a historical figure. I'd imagine it is a fringe group.

Also your original post made me think of this blog post: https://calumsblog.com/2017/08/11/jesus-secular-sources/

where the guy puts together a nice list of sources and quotes about Jesus from various non-Christian sources.

I recommend googling Bart Ehrman Vs. Robert Price debate, since they did a debate a few years ago on this very topic. Even though Ehrman is himself agnostic, he has written an entire book arguing that Jesus certainly existed as a person, which, as it happens, is the stance of 99% of 1st century historians.

So the idea that Jesus didn't exist doesn't have much scholarly support. But do check out the debate as it contains some good details.

I'll add a few comments here:

First, and has been stated, "quantum vacuums" are not nothing, but something. "Nothing" is best described as "absence of being" so the question isn't "how do we get from quantum vacuums to the universe we see today" but rather "why is there anything at all (including quantum vacuums)." Krauss' book performs a bait-and-switch tactic where he pretends to answer the latter but only addresses the former.

I recommend everyone check out David Albert's review of Krauss' book: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

Second, the idea that only religious people believe "nothing comes from nothing" is simply false. Albert is agnostic and has no religious axe to grind, he is just stating the obvious.

Third, therefore the mostly likely scenario is that there has always been something. Debating what that something is (God, some supernatural entity that isn't God, some fundamental particle etc.) is the subject for a different thread, but it seems pretty clear that at rock bottom, there must be something that exists as a metaphysical necessity.