Point A to point B. Quite amazing sometimes.
Not all proofs are objective. Indeed, i'd say most are subjective, but there's no way to prove that to you.
To me, First Cause is a proof. Here's the way i see it:
1) Every effect has a cause.
2) Every cause is an effect.
3) Problem: this is circular.
4) Answer: a) Time is circular. b) There is a supernatural prime cause not affected by rule 2.
So, it come down to a choice between time being circular and a supernatural prime cause.
Why do i choose choice b? because it fits with my world view.
Why do i not choose choice a? It's seems illogical.
So, the choice of b based on values. The negation of a is based on logic.
For the opposite approach:
Why choose choice a? because it's answer stays within the system, and relies completely on logic.
Why not choose choice b? The idea of a supernatural explanation is abhorrent.
So, the choice of a is based on logic. The negation of b is based on values.
That the choice of religion is F and science is T, is something i've posted on before.
That the negation of religion is also F, and the negation of science is also T is new to me. An interesting thought perhaps.