Regarding Christianity's assumptions. I am not saying that Christianity assumes the law of cause and effect, I am saying that science does. And I believe I have made a slight error, it is confusing to say that Christianity is the only philosophy who can prove the law of cause and effect, because it implies that this is possible with deductive reasoning without any assumptions. But I should instead say that the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only possible complete philosophy that is both self-consistent and consistent with the data of human experience. So it is therby the only one able to support the laws of cause and effect, which it in fact does.
Science is not by itself a self-consistent philosophy because it assumes the law of 'cause and effect'. Eastern thought is inconsistent with the experiences of humanity. Western mythology does not attempt to be a complete philosophy, it does not explain the beginning of the world. Islam is self-consistent up to the laws of cause and effect, when it agrees with the Judeo-Christian worldview, but it is not self-consistent afterwards. You have remaining a few other western philosophies that are dependent upon Christianity but inconsistent with her and themselves.
There is only one other truly self-consistent philosophy possible.
Here it is:
akdfjlweicn.vioapern3920j;cm,cvpaeorucmz.opwrjkl39z8c
Complete nonsense, and though it is a logical possiblility, it is inconsistent with the data of human experience.
Evan