A conclusion cannot be validated on the basis that the same conclusion is its own premise. This is what you are doing.
You are trying to say that laws of physics have always been true because they have always been true.
But empirical knowledge of the Big Bang tells us that laws of physics were nonexistent surrounding the moment of the Big Bang. This fact obliterates all criticism of religion by secular intellectuals who say religion is invalid because it is “superstition,” where superstition is defined as anything not explainable by the laws of physics.
No.
"But empirical knowledge of the Big Bang tells us that laws of physics were nonexistent surrounding the moment of the Big Bang. "
Where's the evidence? Note that a lack of knowledge and understanding is simply evidence of the same and most certainly nothing more than that.
"This fact obliterates all criticism of religion by secular intellectuals who say religion is invalid because it is “superstition,” where superstition is defined as anything not explainable by the laws of physics."
Ridiculous. Your "fact" is simply a total lack of knowledge and a claim, presented with no evidence whatsoever, that contradicts reality.