I apologize, I think I did misunderstand with your first answer.
"I suppose it would be better if we all said that science was self-evident and leave it at that. Would that satisfy you?"
Well then we wouldn't need science at all, would we?
"If it can't potentially be disproved then it's not science. That's Popper. If your "law of causality" can't be tested, then it's just another unverifiable belief, worthy of no more credence than a belief in fairies or magic crystals."
If it can't potentially be disproven, then it's not scientifically verifiable. It's not scientific fact, but I thought I covered how that would be circular logic anyway.
I don't think I can make the Law of Causality any more clear at this point.
However, if you don't believe it, then you take it on faith that things can arise without a cause. Additionally, you cannot accept any scientific research as valid as it presupposes the law of causality.