Actually he completely changes what Cause and Effect is. OF COURSE every effect is going to have a cause, that's the definition, HOWEVER, not everything is an effect, this knucklehead can't understand that.
Yet, you don't have even one example of something that is not an effect, while the whole process of scientific investigation uses C&E as the foundation for its operation... because C&E penetrates everything.
First of all, as I previously mentioned, cause and effect is NOT a scientific law, it's a philosophical thought.
''David Hume critiqued this. Hume came from a tradition that viewed all knowledge as either a priori (from reason) or a posteriori (from experience). From reason alone, it is possible to conceive of an effect without a cause, Hume argued, although others have questioned this and also argued whether conceiving something means it is possible. Based on experience alone, our notion of cause and effect is just based on habitually observing one thing following another, and there's certainly no element of necessity when we observe cause and effect in the world; Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning implied that even if we observe cause and effect repeatedly, we cannot infer that throughout the universe every effect must necessarily have a cause.''
There are also scientific examples against the statement of ''everything has a cause'' which is again, not scientific. Radioactive decay or Virtual particles are examples of it.