The First Cause Argument

[McCulloch]

The First Cause Argument
Simply stated this argument asserts that everything in the universe has a cause, therefore there must be an ultimate cause. If the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.
Is this a valid proof of the existence of God?

[harvey1]

What I was getting at was that there is no reason to believe that any particular reason or cause or force was at work because we did not know any previous states of the pen. If it's just sitting there, then we can't even reverse engineer the cause. But since we know it's kind of unusual for a pen to be sitting there in the middle of the air, then we can start our reverse engineering from there.

Why are you committed to there being a rational reason for a pen to be floating in mid-air? Is it because we don't observe floating pens as a typical case, or is it because you believe that floating pens would somehow meet some form of a rational explanation for the same reason that pens lying on surfaces meet some form of rational explanation? If the former, then if somehow your memories were automatically changed to believe that it is typical for pens to be found in this state, has your criteria of rational satisfaction been met? I hope not. I hope you would want and expect there to be a rational reason for floating pens just like I expect there to be a rational reason for pens lying on surfaces. It does not matter if you and humanity have always experienced a certain phenomena in a particular state. The why question must have a rational answer.

I think this is nowhere more true today than a reconciliation between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both theories independently do a pretty good job at explaining phenomena with enormous precision. However, they are not compatible theories, and much has been said about them being incompatible with each other. Now, here you have a situation where we don't know if the universe just happens to be in a state that allows for two incompatible theories to both be true. However, few cosmologists believe that this is an acceptable state for cosmology. There is a great expectation that the world is rational and that we should expect to find a meta-theory (typically called a quantum theory of gravity) that will show why general relativity in this area of our experience with the world, and why quantum theory in this other area of our experience with the world. This is the premise of seeking unifying behavior in the cosmos. If the unifying behavior does not exist, then according to human rationality the world is ultimately irrational. It does not abide by any real meta-rules, and therefore exists fundamental incompatible rules to reality which spells a kind of anarchy to the way things are organized in the world.

That is my point. You are changing tune with respect to the universe by saying that it may not have a cause. If it doesn't have a cause, then it is an irrational event.

That sounds suspiciously like an opinion. If there is no cause, then there is no event; if that's what you mean by irrational, then go right ahead and redefine the term. In the multiverse hypothesis, there is a pre-universe condition, which is (for the purposes of this argument) the uncaused condition -- vapor cloud of logic symbols or whatever -- and in such a condition our current universe still has a beginning, arising from that.

It all depends on how you interpret the multiverse option. Most cosmologists, I think, approach the world as ultimately being governed by some logical or mathematical rules that, because they are the way they are, require a multiverse. If that is the case, then I have no problem with a multiverse hypothesis. If the other situation is the case, that there just exists this mumble jumble stuff that happen to bring about order, then it is not just an opinion that this is an irrational state for the "early" Universe. It is not an opinion of being irrational because such a state by definition has no reason for being what it is. If there is a reason, then there are rules that exist which cause the multiverse that way. But, this is what is said is not the case with an uncaused multiverse. Therefore, let me ask you what prevents the world from being the way this happenstance multiverse is organized from being our world with memories, etc., starting about 5 minutes ago? You can't say a law of parsimony since there are no rules where parsimony is a factor. You can't use any kind of probability since there are no rules that make one world more probable than another. You are just as likely to have a Looneytune world as you are to have a world stocked with 5 minutes ago, or for that matter our world. This is an irrational world since it lacks any rational reason for being what it is (by definition of it being uncaused and having unlimited possibility of being other than what it happened to be).

That's what I love about you, harv. You take the charge traditionally flung at theists and fling it back at non-theists, thereby obfuscating your own position. If you feel that an uncaused cause is irrational, then that is your right, because it really sounds like an opinion.

I tell you what ST, tell me what a mystic is and how it differs from someone who proposes an uncaused world having no reason for its existence, and then tell me why a mystic is someone who proposes an irrational view of the world whereas the uncaused world person is someone proposing a rational view of the world. I cannot see how one can possibly argue that an uncaused world is rational if there are no standards of rationality that cause the world to be what it is. I'm interested in seeing your answer to those questions.

[QED]

Pardon me for butting in on this reply to ST88...

It all depends on how you interpret the multiverse option. Most cosmologists, I think, approach the world as ultimately being governed by some logical or mathematical rules that, because they are the way they are, require a multiverse. If that is the case, then I have no problem with a multiverse hypothesis.

Presumably because you see it all stemming from laws which implies a law giver?

If the other situation is the case, that there just exists this mumble jumble stuff that happen to bring about order, then it is not just an opinion that this is an irrational state for the "early" Universe. It is not an opinion of being irrational because such a state by definition has no reason for being what it is. If there is a reason, then there are rules that exist which cause the multiverse that way. But, this is what is said is not the case with an uncaused multiverse. Therefore, let me ask you what prevents the world from being the way this happenstance multiverse is organized from being our world with memories, etc., starting about 5 minutes ago? You can't say a law of parsimony since there are no rules where parsimony is a factor. You can't use any kind of probability since there are no rules that make one world more probable than another. You are just as likely to have a Looneytune world as you are to have a world stocked with 5 minutes ago, or for that matter our world. This is an irrational world since it lacks any rational reason for being what it is (by definition of it being uncaused and having unlimited possibility of being other than what it happened to be).

But in this case we are talking about a Weak Anthropic universe: only a universe with sufficiently ordered laws coming out of a "mumble jumble" could sustain stellar/planetary/biosphere evolution for the 15 billion years that it might take before intelligent life can start to contemplate it all. I don't think it would be right to call this an irrational world as you do. After all this stability I think it entirely reasonable not to expect Looneytune characters to start stampeding through our cities.

[ST88]

Why are you committed to there being a rational reason for a pen to be floating in mid-air? Is it because we don't observe floating pens as a typical case, or is it because you believe that floating pens would somehow meet some form of a rational explanation for the same reason that pens lying on surfaces meet some form of rational explanation? If the former, then if somehow your memories were automatically changed to believe that it is typical for pens to be found in this state, has your criteria of rational satisfaction been met?

Hein?

"If your memories were automatically changed?" What the %#@&$??! I apologize -- I'm not familiar with this type of argumentation: If you thought differently, would you think differently?

I believe I've stated before that all events are rational, for one reason or another. So the pen lying in mid-air would have to have a rational reason for doing so.

The why question must have a rational answer.

No. The why question is speculative. It implies a value judgment as to the cause. The how question is the rational inquiry.

If the unifying behavior does not exist, then according to human rationality the world is ultimately irrational. It does not abide by any real meta-rules, and therefore exists fundamental incompatible rules to reality which spells a kind of anarchy to the way things are organized in the world.

Do you believe that the search for these unifying "meta-rules" will ever stop? Will general relativity or quantum theory ever be replaced by something else? Will they ever be reconciled? Tune in tomorrow, when you'll hear our astrophysicist say...

let me ask you what prevents the world from being the way this happenstance multiverse is organized from being our world with memories, etc., starting about 5 minutes ago? You can't say a law of parsimony since there are no rules where parsimony is a factor. You can't use any kind of probability since there are no rules that make one world more probable than another. You are just as likely to have a Looneytune world as you are to have a world stocked with 5 minutes ago, or for that matter our world. This is an irrational world since it lacks any rational reason for being what it is (by definition of it being uncaused and having unlimited possibility of being other than what it happened to be).

You see all these possibilities for universe mechanics that might exist, and then you shoot them down because they are all equally unlikely. Any given universe is highly improbable. And yet when the wheel stops spinning, the ball has to land somewhere.

You look at the science right now and conclude that we will never have any idea what's going on, so you proclaim an end to the search and say that you have already found the answer. Where is your sense of adventure? Why do you wish to ignore the tantalyzing clues to these answers? Why do you assume that physics will always be where it is now? I'm sure the Newtonians felt the same way.

tell me what a mystic is and how it differs from someone who proposes an uncaused world having no reason for its existence and then tell me why a mystic is someone who proposes an irrational view of the world whereas the uncaused world person is someone proposing a rational view of the world.

I think you misuse the word "reason", because it implies a cause. Your question is therefore a tautology. Why is an uncaused effect uncaused? Dunno. If you wish a philosophical answer to the question, then you're asking the wrong question. You would have to ask a scientific question: How does this work? Then we can get somewhere. The mystic says it is possible to know "why", the rationalist says it is possible to know "how".

I cannot see how one can possibly argue that an uncaused world is rational if there are no standards of rationality that cause the world to be what it is. I'm interested in seeing your answer to those questions.

If there are no standards of rationality, then I can say anything I want. No, seriously. If you're hung up on the concept of cause/effect, then you're stuck in the same Newtonian conundrum that makes these questions seem impossible. You, yourself have described odd things -- rational events because they happen -- that can't be explained by traditional physics. What makes this case any different?

[Nicene]

It seems strange to me that the concept of a multiverse would be at all useful to solve the issue the first cause argument brings to the table for atheists. It doesn't matter how many universes or dimensions we have. Energy always falls into a state of uselessness. The universe must eventually break down... it has an end.

The universe must have a beginning. There is no such thing as an infinite material object or progression of events. This is logically incoherent. If this
were the case, we would have an infinite regress of events which is absurd. For this to be true, we would need to progress through an infinite amount of events to get to where we are now. Further, an infinite has no beginning or end, and it cannot be multiplied, divided or reduced.

The frequently stated rebuttle question "Then who created God?" Is not applicable. We state that God is an infinite being. An infinite, as I said before, has no beginning or end so it is logically consistant and coherent to say God has no cause and is the causer of alll things.

Atheists cannot present a reasonable hypothesis to the reason for the existance of matter rather then nothing. It is not addiquet to say "Give us time, science will discover it." This is also an issue of logic which when undestood as philosophy, is... and I use this next statement as an expression and lightly, considering the topic... timeless.

[QED]

There is no such thing as an infinite material object or progression of events.

The frequently stated rebuttle question "Then who created God?" Is not applicable. We state that God is an infinite being. An infinite, as I said before, has no beginning or end so it is logically consistant and coherent to say God has no cause and is the causer of alll things.

So by defining God as being immaterial you can insert him into a position barred to material things. What does this tell us about the characteristics of God?

Atheists cannot present a reasonable hypothesis to the reason for the existance of matter rather then nothing. It is not addiquet to say "Give us time, science will discover it." This is also an issue of logic which when undestood as philosophy, is... and I use this next statement as an expression and lightly, considering the topic... timeless.

What is it about the philosophical, logical, necessity for this immaterial, uncaused cause that distinguishes it as a God to be worshipped rather than a non-personal (clinical) precursor to all the subsequent time and energy/material. I don't think this particular philosophy speaks to the issue of God's characteristics. This is where the philosophy of a multiverse steps in to relieve the pressure from the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants coming from competing philosophies.

These competing philosophies do address the supposed character of God in that they refer to a will to have things exactly the way they are now. I would like to know what it is in logic that necessitates this strong Anthropic hypothesis?

[harvey1]

It all depends on how you interpret the multiverse option. Most cosmologists, I think, approach the world as ultimately being governed by some logical or mathematical rules that, because they are the way they are, require a multiverse. If that is the case, then I have no problem with a multiverse hypothesis.

Presumably because you see it all stemming from laws which implies a law giver?

You know me, I like the term omniscient interpreter.

If the other situation is the case, that there just exists this mumble jumble stuff that happen to bring about order, then it is not just an opinion that this is an irrational state for the "early" Universe. It is not an opinion of being irrational because such a state by definition has no reason for being what it is. If there is a reason, then there are rules that exist which cause the multiverse that way. But, this is what is said is not the case with an uncaused multiverse. Therefore, let me ask you what prevents the world from being the way this happenstance multiverse is organized from being our world with memories, etc., starting about 5 minutes ago? You can't say a law of parsimony since there are no rules where parsimony is a factor. You can't use any kind of probability since there are no rules that make one world more probable than another. You are just as likely to have a Looneytune world as you are to have a world stocked with 5 minutes ago, or for that matter our world. This is an irrational world since it lacks any rational reason for being what it is (by definition of it being uncaused and having unlimited possibility of being other than what it happened to be).

But in this case we are talking about a Weak Anthropic universe: only a universe with sufficiently ordered laws coming out of a "mumble jumble" could sustain stellar/planetary/biosphere evolution for the 15 billion years that it might take before intelligent life can start to contemplate it all. I don't think it would be right to call this an irrational world as you do. After all this stability I think it entirely reasonable not to expect Looneytune characters to start stampeding through our cities.

This of course assumes that a Looneytune world is not a possible world, and in order to make that assumption you have to assume that there is a logical order to the world which restricts which worlds are possible and which ones aren't. That's my whole point here. If possible worlds is restricted by a logical order (God), then why are we having this discussion? You believe in God as much as I do.

[harvey1]

"If your memories were automatically changed?" What the %#@&$??! I apologize -- I'm not familiar with this type of argumentation: If you thought differently, would you think differently? I believe I've stated before that all events are rational, for one reason or another. So the pen lying in mid-air would have to have a rational reason for doing so.

But, why do think this? Is it because that a pen floating in mid-air would be outside of our experience (i.e., we have no memories of having that experience our whole life), or is it because everything has an explanation? If you are committed to everything having an explanation, then why does this not hold for the universe?

The why question must have a rational answer.

No. The why question is speculative. It implies a value judgment as to the cause. The how question is the rational inquiry.

"How" is an easy question to answer. The pen lifts up 7 feet and stays there. Now that you have the "how" are you satified that a pen floating in mid-air needs no further explanation? Obviously good explanations answer the why question, that's what they are supposed to do.

If the unifying behavior does not exist, then according to human rationality the world is ultimately irrational. It does not abide by any real meta-rules, and therefore exists fundamental incompatible rules to reality which spells a kind of anarchy to the way things are organized in the world.

Do you believe that the search for these unifying "meta-rules" will ever stop? Will general relativity or quantum theory ever be replaced by something else? Will they ever be reconciled? Tune in tomorrow, when you'll hear our astrophysicist say...

I think the point you miss is that as each explanation comes forward, more and more missing information is filled in as a result. It's not like a theory answers certain scientific questions and then a new theory comes along voiding out the previous answers. The new theory adds more sophistication to the answer, but the original theory doesn't just go away. It serves as a good approximation and those original answers to those original questions were approximately true. So, sure, future cosmologists and particle physicists may add more theories, but this does not imply that science is not discovering truth in their explanations of these fundamental interactions. Are you suggesting that science is not a rational account of why things happen as they do?

You see all these possibilities for universe mechanics that might exist, and then you shoot them down because they are all equally unlikely. Any given universe is highly improbable. And yet when the wheel stops spinning, the ball has to land somewhere. You look at the science right now and conclude that we will never have any idea what's going on, so you proclaim an end to the search and say that you have already found the answer. Where is your sense of adventure? Why do you wish to ignore the tantalyzing clues to these answers? Why do you assume that physics will always be where it is now? I'm sure the Newtonians felt the same way.

Actually, the view that I'm elaborating upon only endorses that view. I believe in a rational account of the world, however, as a thinking person, I must ask what does it mean to give a rational account. Ultimately that means that there is a logical order to the world. If there is no particular logical order to the world, then pens really can float in mid-air for no reason. This is exactly my complaint with any non-theist approach to the universe. It allots for an irrationality existing in the world, and that's something that I think we have absolutely no evidence that such is the case in our world. We should be committed to rational explanations, and this necessarily means that God exists.

tell me what a mystic is and how it differs from someone who proposes an uncaused world having no reason for its existence and then tell me why a mystic is someone who proposes an irrational view of the world whereas the uncaused world person is someone proposing a rational view of the world.

I think you misuse the word "reason", because it implies a cause. Your question is therefore a tautology. Why is an uncaused effect uncaused? Dunno. If you wish a philosophical answer to the question, then you're asking the wrong question. You would have to ask a scientific question: How does this work? Then we can get somewhere. The mystic says it is possible to know "why", the rationalist says it is possible to know "how".

The mystic doesn't say it is possible to know "why." The mystic believes that the answer to why is unanswerable and cannot be contemplated through rational processes because there is no rational reason for things.

What I gather from your answer is that you do not think that science explains why certain structures happen in nature. I find that hard to chew. Do you really think that biology has not at all answered why there are people on earth today? Do you not believe that humans are here because we evolved from other life forms down through the ages?

I cannot see how one can possibly argue that an uncaused world is rational if there are no standards of rationality that cause the world to be what it is. I'm interested in seeing your answer to those questions.

If there are no standards of rationality, then I can say anything I want. No, seriously. If you're hung up on the concept of cause/effect, then you're stuck in the same Newtonian conundrum that makes these questions seem impossible. You, yourself have described odd things -- rational events because they happen -- that can't be explained by traditional physics. What makes this case any different?

Events that I cannot explain using traditional physics must be approached like any ole' floating pen. You have to answer the why question by developing a theory that accounts for current theories, but yet resolves the dilemma posed by the phenomena that is not currently understood. This is what it means to be committed to rationality. In my view, many non-theists are committed to rationality up to the point to where it requires them to sacrifice their non-theism. At that point, they prefer think the world is irrational. I find that terribly ironic since their initial quest to understand the world was a rejection of God so that they could be rational (i.e., in their clouded way of thinking).

[ST88]

Energy always falls into a state of uselessness. The universe must eventually break down... it has an end.

The universe must have a beginning. There is no such thing as an infinite material object or progression of events. This is logically incoherent. If this
were the case, we would have an infinite regress of events which is absurd. For this to be true, we would need to progress through an infinite amount of events to get to where we are now. Further, an infinite has no beginning or end, and it cannot be multiplied, divided or reduced.

This would be true if we were to accept that energy and matter behaved the same way before the universe was created. But there's nothing to suggest that. Our current understanding is that time itself was created as a result of the creation of this universe. If there were no time before the universe began, then there is no logic flaw.

[ST88]

I'm cutting down the quotes on these, so apologies if I've left anything dramatically relevant out.

If you are committed to everything having an explanation, then why does this not hold for the universe?

The idea that everything has an explanation is the foundation of scientific inquiry. Of course there's an explanation. That doesn't mean that there is a cause in the sense that we use the term for "cause/effect".

The why question must have a rational answer.

No. The why question is speculative. It implies a value judgment as to the cause. The how question is the rational inquiry.

"How" is an easy question to answer. The pen lifts up 7 feet and stays there.

No. That's an answer to the "what" question.

So, sure, future cosmologists and particle physicists may add more theories, but this does not imply that science is not discovering truth in their explanations of these fundamental interactions. Are you suggesting that science is not a rational account of why things happen as they do?

Heh. What we know now is that Newtonian laws are metaphors for quantum laws. They are convenient shortcuts to describe what we term as "objects" and "forces" behaving around one another on a macro level. The metaphors work nicely for the purposes which we need them to, but not in all cases. As I understand it, our initial mistake with quantum laws is the forced application of the Newtonian metaphor to these infinitesimal particles and forces. So, yes, the metaphors still work, but the mechanics behind them have still not been discovered. Wht happens when they are discovered, and things start to fall into place?

You see all these possibilities for universe mechanics that might exist, and then you shoot them down because they are all equally unlikely. Any given universe is highly improbable. And yet when the wheel stops spinning, the ball has to land somewhere...

If there is no particular logical order to the world, then pens really can float in mid-air for no reason. This is exactly my complaint with any non-theist approach to the universe. It allots for an irrationality existing in the world, and that's something that I think we have absolutely no evidence that such is the case in our world. We should be committed to rational explanations, and this necessarily means that God exists.

The problem with this is trying to figure out what "rational" means. If it's irrational to assume that an effect can have no cause, then your argument is a non-starter. It's this assumption which underlies my objection to your position. Cause/effect requires the variable of time. Infinite is not even a relevant term because it implies an infinity of cause and effect. I'm talking about a pre-universe condition where time is not an issue. I realize this is all purely speculative. I also realize that the God hypothesis is equally as speculative. Your position seems to be that because the (presumed) atheist speculation is impossible, the God speculation must be true. I don't follow that. You cannot demonstrate that either view is impossible.

you do not think that science explains why certain structures happen in nature. I find that hard to chew. Do you really think that biology has not at all answered why there are people on earth today? Do you not believe that humans are here because we evolved from other life forms down through the ages?

That's not what I said at all. I readily admit that science hasn't figured everything out. And it will likely be a long time before it does, if it ever does truly figure everything out. However, in the meantime, I'm not going to assume that because science has gaps, those gaps must be filled with a deity. Science is a process. If you want immediate answers, go see your mystic -- who, by the way, is perfectly willing to give you answers.

In my view, many non-theists are committed to rationality up to the point to where it requires them to sacrifice their non-theism. At that point, they prefer think the world is irrational. I find that terribly ironic since their initial quest to understand the world was a rejection of God so that they could be rational (i.e., in their clouded way of thinking).

I don't entirely disagree with you on this particular point. I would argue that the word "requires" should be replaced with "may suggest to". On second thought, that's not too grammatically correct, but what the heck. Many English grammar mistakes are far too charming to be uptight about. I might quibble with a chicken and egg argument about rationality/belief in God, but what you say certainly applies to some people. Deduction includes improbable possibilities being true if everything else is proved false.

[harvey1]

The idea that everything has an explanation is the foundation of scientific inquiry. Of course there's an explanation. That doesn't mean that there is a cause in the sense that we use the term for "cause/effect".

For physical phenomena, how do you differentiate an explanation for a phenomena with the cause of a phenomena? It seems to me that when we are talking about physical phenomena an explanation necessarily provides the cause of that phenomena.

No. That's an answer to the "what" question.

"What" would be a pen floating in mid-air (e.g., "What is the pen doing? It is floating 7 feet in the air. What did it do before that? It was lying on the table.")

Heh. What we know now is that Newtonian laws are metaphors for quantum laws. They are convenient shortcuts to describe what we term as "objects" and "forces" behaving around one another on a macro level. The metaphors work nicely for the purposes which we need them to, but not in all cases. As I understand it, our initial mistake with quantum laws is the forced application of the Newtonian metaphor to these infinitesimal particles and forces. So, yes, the metaphors still work, but the mechanics behind them have still not been discovered. Wht happens when they are discovered, and things start to fall into place?

Our answer to the "why" question is more complete with the new theories as they come along. (E.g., why does gravity really exist?) That's not to say that these "metaphors" were not really stabs at answering the why question. They surely were. Objects really do have mass, and mass really does have a gravitational pull upon objects. How is that not an answer to why the moon circles the earth, or the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun? Is it the full story? No. We learned from Einstein that mass curves space, and we have yet to learn how this can best be described as a quantum phenomena. So, I reject the metaphor argument to Newtonian theories.

The problem with this is trying to figure out what "rational" means. If it's irrational to assume that an effect can have no cause, then your argument is a non-starter. It's this assumption which underlies my objection to your position.

No, uncaused events are not irrational because they are uncaused, they are irrational because they are not subject to rational analysis. There is nothing further we can say about an uncaused event other than that's just the way it is. We aren't even saying it is the only possible world since the only possible world explanation would be a cause for why the event happened. I could say the same about a pen floating in mid-air. If that's just the way it is, pens arbitrarily floating in mid-air and there's nothing causing it, then this is irrational not because it's an uncaused event, it's irrational since we cannot go further in our rational inquiry in asking why it floated versus fly off into space or just sit on the table.

Cause/effect requires the variable of time. Infinite is not even a relevant term because it implies an infinity of cause and effect. I'm talking about a pre-universe condition where time is not an issue. I realize this is all purely speculative. I also realize that the God hypothesis is equally as speculative. Your position seems to be that because the (presumed) atheist speculation is impossible, the God speculation must be true. I don't follow that. You cannot demonstrate that either view is impossible.

What does possibility mean? In my mind possibility means that there is a logical order to the world which delineates some events as possible because it conforms to this logical order and some things as impossible because it does not conform to this logical order. If we reject the logical order as a requirement to defining possibility, then there are no restrictions on what is possible and what is not. This is not rational since it is not subject to rational inquiry. So, why should we admit solutions whose solutions are entirely irrational? Do we admit young-earth creationism despite the fact that it is irrational? To even allot for the possibility of irrationality is to be irrational in one's thinking, in my opinion.

However, in the meantime, I'm not going to assume that because science has gaps, those gaps must be filled with a deity. Science is a process. If you want immediate answers, go see your mystic -- who, by the way, is perfectly willing to give you answers.

You're confusing different brands of theism. Science must necessarily assume a logical order exists to the world, otherwise key assumptions could never be made. This logical order does not mean that we don't have to look further for answers. Hey, the Christians in the Middle Ages already knew this, and that's why many Christians encouraged scientific thought. Afterall, it was not atheists and agnostics who discovered science--some of them only tried to hijack as their own discovery years later (e.g., Dawkins, Sagan).

Deduction includes improbable possibilities being true if everything else is proved false.

It's the rejection of God part that irks me. Why don't these folks just admit that they see God like the New York Yankees? They enjoy when they lose, and hate it when they win.