The theist’s first principle, aka his answer to ultimate questions, is “God did it.”  That is my position.

Little Pig’s first principle, aka hi answer to ultimate questions, is “That’s just the way it is.”

So, the only relevant issue is to determine which of these is the more logically defensible.

Although, due to the misconceptions inherent in Little Pig’s casting of the theistic worldview, providing a blow-by-blow response would divert us from the topic at issue, I do want to make specific reference to Little Pig’s 1A.Cons, in which he claims that the theist view “[r]uns into the logical problem of infinite regression.”

This is precisely and exactly the opposite of the truth.  Even if one does not believe in God, it remains nonetheless true that asserting the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God, who created literally everything, is not subject to this particular objection.  As matter of fact, Little Pig has mislabeled one of the theistic worldviews greatest STRENGTH’S as a weakness. 

The problem of infinite regression, as understood in both philosophy and science, is precisely the problem of “first principles” or “answers to ultimate questions” that we’ve been talking about all along. A system or method that suffers from infinite regression is one in which the starting point for an inquiry keeps changing, where each foundational presupposition requires another, and another, and another, ad infinitum.

This is precisely the case for “that’s just the way it is,” for any number of reasons. First, who’s to say that things are this way or that way? Light waves vs. light beams. Gravity vs. relativity. Second, “that’s just the way it is” is what is called an “empty conception.” There is not “there” there. It is a sufficiently vacuous statement as to have inspired a popular song that I used to listen to on construction sites in upstate New York (“That’s just the way it is.” FILL IN). 

Lest this appear to be some sort of ad hominem or straw man argument, allow me to stress the more substantive point that because “that’s just the way it is” is explicitly and necessarily devoid of content (no matter how strongly Little Pig may wish it were otherwise) it’s a cosmological Rorschach Test; it validates every viewpoint, and hence none.  It is thus fundamentally at odds with inquiry of any sort.  It may sound appealing in its ecumenical pragmatism, but like a sports car with a Yugo engine, it’s not going to do much once the proverbial rubber hits the road.

Furthermore, it is the “that’s just the way it is” view that suffers from infinite regression.  “That’s just the way it is” will always unavoidably base its inquiries on the latest bit of information or (hopefully informed) opinion, be it scientific, moral, aesthetic, or what have you.  There is no way around this. No matter how sophisticated the latest, greatest starting point may seem, it will remain precisely the “latest, greatest” thing. Does this make it right? Hardly. “Moving target” would be more like it.

So what is it that give this “moving target” substance?  Why does the non-theist even believe in the reality of his own inquiries?  Why does he assume that he is living in a real world, rather than in a dream? How does he know that he is not, in Hilary Putnam’s famous Cartesian one-liner, “a brain in a vat” (think “The Matrix” except the pods have only brains in them, rather than comatose bodies).

Why does the non-theist bother to study natural phenomena, such as light and sound, without any assurance that they will not change?  Even my favorite atheist philosopher, David Hume, claimed that reason could provide nothing like assurance in such questions, and that the belief—e.g.—that the sun would rise tomorrow is simply a habit, derived from experience.  There is no rational basis for the belief at all.

Thus, I submit that the reason is that the non-theist piggybacks (speaking of turtles) on the theist’s worldview.  

The non-theist cannot explain the consistency and uniformity of the world, yet uses it as a presupposition.  This is an illegitimate inference born of an illicit assumption. The illicit assumption is that the future will resemble the past, and illegitimate inference which issues from it is that simply accepting the world as it appears (aka “that’s just the way it is”).

To sum up, “that’s just the way it is” suffers from both infinite regression and its illicit assumption that the future will resemble the past.  The former invalidates it as a suitable starting point, and the latter reveals the non-theist’s reliance on the assumptions of a theistic worldview. To put this another way, God is the condition for the possibility of knowledge. To put it still another way, “that’s just the way it is” is a good 20-30 “turtles” up the pile from the ultimate turtle on which it stands.

That ultimate turtle (may He forgive me to saying so!) is, of course, God. The non-theistic turtle stands on a turtle who stands on a turtle who stands on a turtle . . . who stands on God.