Let's flesh this out a bit.
I'm a scientist. I have chosen to believe in the Law of Causality. It rings true to me. Now, I have encountered atheists, skeptics, scientists, and theologians who actually deny the veracity of the Law of Causality, and there's nothing that I can say or present to them to convince them that they are wrong.
In contrast, I have encountered many atheists, skeptics, scientists, philosophers, and theologians who truly believe that the Big Bang is an EFFECT.
Philosophical Premise or Scientific Hypothesis: The Big Bang is an effect.
Now, if this premise is 100% true and you believe it to be true, then the question naturally and logically follows, "Who or what caused the Big Bang."
I personally have chosen to stand in this particular camp.
I have chosen to believe all of the scientific evidence that proves to me that the Big Bang really happened and that the Big Bang was the beginning of our particular universe. I also choose to believe Genesis 1: 1, which says that in the beginning God created this universe. I have scientific evidence that supports my belief and I have revelatory evidence from God that supports my belief. I choose to believe the evidence.
Now, like I have said previously, I have run into many scientists, atheists, agnostics, and theologians who deliberately and knowingly choose to believe that my premise is false. Remember, my chosen premise is that the Big Bang is an effect. There are two camps that I am aware of that fit into this particular category, and deny the validity and veracity of my chosen premise.
The first camp consists of the scientists and the philosophers and theologians who choose to believe that the Big Bang never happened. They choose to believe that our universe is Eternal and never had a beginning and thus never needed a cause. They deny the scientific evidence and they deny the scriptural evidence, and then logically conclude that there is no First Cause because our universe is Eternal.
The second camp chooses to believe the scientific evidence, but they reject the scriptural evidence. Therefore, this second camp chooses to believe that the Big Bang is the First Cause.
Both camps deny the truthfulness of my premise that "the Big Bang is an effect", and then they insert premises of their own that fit their chosen beliefs. Simple enough!
Like I said, using philosophy, you can derive any conclusion that you desire by changing the premises. Philosophy is slippery and can't be nailed down. You will always find someone who will deny the truthfulness of your chosen premise.
In the book, "Who Designed the Designer", Michael Augros starts with the Law of Causality as his first premise. It makes perfect logical sense to me, because I have bought into that premise -- the belief that there has to be some kind of First Cause or Prime Mover behind all of this. However, I have met theologians, atheists, scientists, and philosophers who categorically deny that premise and make the claim that there is no First Cause because our universe is Eternal. I have also run into a few people who believe in the Law of Causality and the existence of a First Cause, but they choose to believe that the Big Bang is the First Cause.
Then you will even get a few nut-cases like David Hume who will prove philosophically that there is no such thing as cause and effect, and others will jump on the bandwagon and declare that everything is self-causing thus essentially eliminating effects from existence. Some will even try to convince us that everything is an effect, and thus in the end nothing has a cause. You can twist this thing any way that you want to, because it's philosophy.
But, what good is a philosophical proof if it proves a lie to be true?
David Hume's material feels like junk and feels like a lie masquerading as the truth, but many people have swallowed his philosophy hook, line, and sinker. Such is the nature of philosophy. With philosophy, you can have anything that you want.
On Amazon in the reviews of the book "Who Designed the Designer" by Michael Augros, there are a couple of people who deny the validity and the veracity and the existence of the First Cause; and thus, the whole argument or philosophical proof falls apart for them. That is their right. They can deny the existence of a First Cause or the existence of God, if they want to. This is philosophy after all. Philosophy has always been the weakest link in any kind of proof. They have the right to deny the existence of God and a First Cause; but, we have the right to choose not to go there with them. I have as much a right to choose to believe in the validity and truthfulness and existence of the First Cause as they have to choose to believe that there is no such thing. And, I actually have scriptural evidence to support my choice. When it comes to our universe, God said, "I did it"; and, I choose to take Him at His word.
I choose to go with the preponderance of the evidence, which leads me to believe that the Big Bang is an effect. The scientific evidence can be and typically is interpreted in that manner; and, Genesis 1: 1 says that it is so. According to Genesis, our universe had a beginning, and God was the cause of that beginning. So, I choose to go with scripture, and I choose to go with God on this one. God tells us that He was there and that He saw how it was done. God tells us plainly that He caused our universe or created our universe; and, I choose to believe that He is telling us the truth. For me, God's claims and God's pronouncements are infinitely more valid and substantial than some self-proclaimed philosopher stating that the First Cause is invalid and does not exist.
Obviously, you can choose to believe anything that you want to believe, even if you have absolutely no evidence to support your chosen belief. Such is the nature of philosophy and philosophical belief. Every day there are people out there who will choose to believe that the lies are true.
C'est la vie!