"Science has belief in naturalism"

MayCaesar

I would answer this by noting that without the assumption of causality our thinking simply does not work. There is no other way to cognise the world than getting to the "why" of things; the only other way is neutral observation and description of the world, which is not particularly useful. If we assume that there is no connection between apparent reason and consequence, then we have to admit that our brains are useless in trying to understand how the world works, and in that case both theism and atheism become equally irrelevant.

For the second part, it is, indeed, a poor analogy, because it assumes that the laws of the present universe have created this Universe - but this is not actually what science claims. Science does not make any claims about the laws in the world "prior" to the formation of our Universe, because it is in principle impossible for us to interact with that world and deduce anything about it - but we do know that the Universe was formed X years ago, and this is the starting point of our scientific journey.

I am not sure why theists like to bring up the matter of "who/what created the Universe" all the time. Science does not have any stance on this, and theists have a stance for which they have 0 evidence. We do not know who/what created the Universe, and, in fact, from our modern perspective this question does not even make sense. What is interesting is what happened then; what made the Universe appear is not important, and, perhaps, the answer is simply "nothing".