I CORINTHIANS 1
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
KJV .. more here
Now my head is going peculiar as I think about that, but I was reminded of the dialogue between Democritus and Aristotle just as Paul had been reminded in his epistle to the Corinthians.
Epicurus held that the elementary constituents of nature are undifferentiated matter, in the form of discrete, solid and indivisible particles (“atoms”) below the threshold of perception, plus empty space. In its broad outline, Epicurus inherited this scheme from the earlier atomists, above all Democritus. But Democritus' version had been the object of critiques by later thinkers, especially Aristotle, in part for incoherencies in the notion of an infinite void, in part for problems attaching to his idea of minima, or entities of the smallest conceivable size (see especially Physics Book 6). First, freestanding entities of minimal size could have no edges, and so no shapes, or rather would be all edge: thus, if two minima touched, they would wholly overlap. (The same argument applies to points in a line, which is why a line contains points but is not composed of them, according to Aristotle.) Further, if atoms really are conceptually indivisible, and not just physically unsplittable, then when two atoms pass by each other it is impossible that they should at any time be only partway past, for this would imply a point partway along the length of the atom, which contradicts the premise that it is a minimum. Although Aristotle does not state the argument precisely in this form, it is apparent that a strict conception of minimal-sized atoms entails that motion too must consist of discontinuous quanta; and if motion, then time. Atoms must, then, Aristotle inferred, move in discrete hops (kinêmata), each one occupying a single temporal minimum — and hence, all atoms must move at a uniform speed. An infinite void, with atoms distributed throughout it, led to problems of its own, for it permits no intrinsic spatial orientation and hence no account of why things fall, as they are observed to do.
Often, in a musical environment, I am required to assess the performance on drums by participants in an educational setting. There is a sliding scale from abysmal to excellent according to such parameters as
- are they drumming in time?
- are they leading or following?
- if I stop playing the piano, do they keep on drumming?
- if we all change the rhythm, do they keep on with the previous rhythm?
Pretty straightforward really, and easy to demonstrate whether learning is taking place especially where language is not available. In developing such as assessment method I found that it was easier to assign values from –2 to +2 rather than from 1 to 5
The optimum value might be 0 in that case.
For example a drummer could be consistent and confident, which would get a good score
but be playing the wrong rhythm
So there'd be a +2 and a –2 resulting in a score of 0 overall but that would be a bad 0, not a good 0.
In the imaginary world of secular logic with its discrete minima and quantum leaps, its "rights" and "wrongs" and "mutuallies exclusive" perhaps a similar system would be useful?
Responses at the extremities of any range are more significant. The greater the folly, as perceived through the lens of atheistic logic, the clearer their delusion becomes. Having established that the atheist's responses have a consistency significantly better than random (random responses merit no further analysis because they are random)
we would like to know whether their responses are balanced. In the above example a t test demonstrates that although our drummer was drumming away like billy-o what was being played was no better balanced than random
and confident, which would get a good score +2
but be playing the wrong rhythm –2
t test says not
balanced = bad 0
and it's exactly the same for the atheist, raving in an imaginary number of meaningless propositions all based upon the baseless foundation of disbelief
Consistency? consistent and confident, "Christians are always mad, bad and dangerous to know" +2
Balanced? but although they call us "mad" or "deranged" it's for a different reason every day –2
t test says not balanced = bad 0
We get to hear the atheist drum here quite a lot. There are minor issues such as the taxonomic system for describing creatures with wings or whether the 7th day is Saturday or Sunday and stuff like that of which there's quite a lot and it's all somewhat arbitrary really.
God has explained the true situation.
.........C’est la vie
The more significant matters, such as whether exterminating myriads of heathen babies is an expression of love, are more confronting. So often we read in their posts how God commands murder or rape or whatever distortion of His Inerrant Word they favour on the day when we know that nothing God commands ever disagrees with His commandments.
• These objections from atheists show the devil inside each one of them is at full oven temperature.
By subtracting the number of minor perceived discrepencies as described by the atheist observer from their more significant responses at the extreme end of the range a negative number of observations becomes available.
To see whether theirs is a balanced response the variance is divided by
which in this case is an imaginary number since we are dealing with the significant responses (having subtracted their arbitrary objections which are not significantly different from random and amount to just making up stuff to be awkward)
thereby aligning our analysis with the imaginary nature of their objections as described by Paul in his comparison with the Greek philosophers, some of whose musings I have posted.
Disbelief in God is an abomination in its own right and we know from Dr Mee's demonstration that they are claiming opposites to be the same thing as well, p
and not p
applied to light and not light or to thick darkness and not thick darkness—they might as well just say that light is the absence of darkness and get it over with—amounts to declaring God's presence as the negation of His absence and since His absence is the primum mobile
of all their pronouncements, the atheist agenda stands revealed as presuppositionalist dogma in all its glum stupor.
No wonder they invented the unconscious mind