You and I are familiar with a few of them because of the comments they post. The daily score is not enormous. So far today there have been sixteen, from six different countries. Often there are around ten visitors each day, most of them from Australia, the U.S., the U.K, France and Canada; Brasil, the Philippines, Russia and another fifteen or so countries are identified as the origin of other readers around the world.
For the Big Picture, here are today’s updated stats : Posts published : 445; Views : 14,924 ; Visitors : 5071 ; Best Views ever : 570 (January 8, 2016). That means that since the Blog’s beginning four years ago, five thousand people (many, of course, being repeat readers) have on average consulted three posts each time they visit. One day someone read, in a single day, every post I had published : I have reason to believe it was an editor who having read a few of my posts on terrorist attacks in France, decided to check out all the other posts I had written. No, he did not propose publishing them in book form . . .
Some people think I have only a handful (five, max) of readers. This is contradicted by the stats. There are even people who have asked to be informed by e-mail whenever I publish a new post. WordPress calls them “Followers”. There are at present 58 of them. Because they do not post comments, some cynics accuse me of lying, suggesting they do not exist. These same cynics (you know the one I’m talking about), however, believe that God exists. I can prove that my Followers do; He cannot prove that his “God” does . . .
RIDENDA RELIGIO
Blind Faith: Blind Folly 
Most Atheists are not activists they just prefer to live there life without religion. But for us who are activists your blog is just one of many around the world we visit. But to my mind one of the best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks, Stephen. You just went ahead and made my day !
Clint
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fancy meeting yo here Stephen……
I enjoy these posts, & have read every one since ”following”.
LikeLike
atheistsmeow its good to see we both like Franks Blog
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stephen reckons you’re one of the best, Frank. Felicitation!
Richard Dawkins, take note.
Whenever I knock you out of the water, I’m licking the world’s best on offer from atheism.
Quite an honour; I did not realise.
MBK produces some pearls: Ray Lindwell, Cardinal Gilroy and the
doctor of atheology (A.B.T.).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cynical or what. someone thinks a lot of themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well how about that eh? Somebody likes the blog more than Lumen who is believed to consult it every day – a BOTB manque (or monkey more likely). The light will eventually dawn on Lumen.
Meanwhile, congratulations to all and sundry.
Frank would be happy with More – more or less.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of my favorite French singers, whose vocal cords like the rest of his anatomy are now dust and ashes, Jean Ferrat, used to sing a marvellous ballad, “Que Serais-Je Sans Toi ?” – “What would I be without you ?” This Blog, Thomas More, would be so much poorer without your stimulating, frequent contributions. Moving forward, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, I look forward to More.
Desiderius Erasmus
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reciprocal back scratching from the duo. Aw shucks!
The recent cat addition, making the trio, might also now scratch.
LikeLike
Keep going Frank. Good reading!
LikeLike
Well, it did not take long for the predicted scratch. Do I prophesize?
LikeLike
I enjoy your blog, it is my favorit!. I am almost the same age as you.
LikeLike
Congrats Niels, a Swede almost as old as Frank and I.
I hope you are an atheist on the brink. I can help you with English spelling(favorite) and perhaps convince you that your life is not necessarily almost over, like Frank/Thom believe, but potentiality about to begin.
You, like myself, must believe in the reality which is God, and His promise of eternal life to those who believe.
Frank/Thom can only offer you gloom ahead.
LikeLike
Lumen should know better. The preferred spelling is FAVOURITE in the English speaking community except America where the preferred spelling has no U.
My advice to Niels is to politely but firmly and definitively give Lumen his marching orders.
ARGO is a good start.
LikeLike
OK then Frank.
Prove that your 58 plus “followers” do exist. I have already given heaps of evidence that my God exists but you hide your head.
LikeLike
” I have already given heaps of evidence that my God exists” How on earth can you prove the existence of god. You have faith not proof. and faith without evidence is stupid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Stephen Brodie typically misrepresents what I actually wrote and jumps to false conclusions. That is why atheists end up so confused.
I did not say I had proof. I said I have given heaps of evidence.
Please adjust your spectacles and read again.
You must realise that there is a difference between evidence and proof. Or do you?
I can give lots of evidence, but if someone does not want to see, or is incapable of clear vision, then the best of evidence does not convince.
Atheists are usually pre conditioned by excess pride(no god can tell me what to do) or life style(I don’t like the implication of giving up some imperfections or choices I have made) or guilt (denial that I am living wrongly) or mental laziness or indifference (I’m OK without religion) or limited intellect or anger at God(comfort of feeling a poor victim) or blaming God for some evil.
In all, the intellect can be impaired for a number of reasons, such that an abundance of glaring evidence is not grasped.
I accept that faith is based on sound reasoning, first from the evidence from the world around us. Christian faith is not blind faith, but is solidly based on rational reasoning.
I once offered to argue in these columns, via 6 steps to reasoned faith, akin to the successive steps of developing a geometry theorem.
I was censored, ridiculed and banned from proceeding by the supreme duo.
So, please present your evidence for your faith in non God, who or what that is.
Frank, at times, mumbles about super atoms or self organization, but cant explain his thought bubbles.
Maybe you have a proof for your disbelief, or even merely strong evidence. These columns need a bit of atheistic meat, if that is not a fantasy.
How do you explain your existence? Do you exist? Did you have to exist? Was your existence caused by something? Did life begin from some non life form? What is your evidence?
Do you realise that the chance of life from non life is virtually zero? Don’t just take the word of believers
Does your faith accept the big bang beginning of our universe?
Maybe we can engage in a dialogue that your mentors are so reluctant to do.
They prefer slinging unsubstantiated insults and unreasoned scorn.
LikeLike
Jim, you really are calling me a liar ! I have in front of me the names of my 58 Followers accompanied by the number of months or years they have been followers of my Blog. I even have another list with their e-mail addresses. Naturally I am not going to publish them here, and I am certainly not going to let you have their addresses. But, O Lumen of Little Faith, I will send you by personal snail-mail a print-out from my WordPress page of statistics which states that I have 58 Followers, and gives the pseudonym and photo of each. This, you will have to agree, is EVIDENCE. In spite of your claim to “have already given heaps of evidence that (your) God exists”, you and I and our readers all know that none of your arguments – Scripture, Jesus’ “miracles”, “proofs” from Aristotle, Anselm and Aquinas among others – could, by any stretch of the imagination, be called EVIDENCE comparable with mine. Shout me down as loud as you like (“argument weak here; shout like hell !”). Stephen Brodie said it best : “You have faith not proof”. When we were schoolmates, I used to admire you. Now I pity you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I somehow suspect that if a “credibility” poll was taken Lumen would be overshadowed – or even cast into the outer darkness. It remains a mystery to me what otherwise intelligent people will accept as “proof” of their belief (thanks Stephen) that a non-material entity they call “God” exists and is endowed with personality. A bigger mystery than the MYSTERIES of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Tridentine fame.
LikeLike
lumen de lumine Evidence, Proof, Pedant.
LikeLike
“Otherwise intelligent people”, dear Thom, believe that there is an even more intelligent being in the universe. You understand that a cause can not produce in its effect, something which it does not possess itself, formally, informally or eminently.
So what superior intelligence, superior goodness do we look to, in explanation for our contingent existence?
Tell me.
What is your reason, Thom, that a non material entity can exist. If you are right, where does the most fundamental building block of all material objects come from. Is it material? But that is incongruent. What is behind the most fundamental material particle?
LikeLike
.
I try not to call people liars, Frank but choose more polite expressions and inferences.
You may not believe that I do have my standards. I believe I have not actually called you a liar, but you do stretch credibility.
I’m sorry to have lost your unfounded admiration. I do have my faults, and like yourself, have a tendency to pig-headedness. We are both of Irish descent, after all.
The staunch Catholic faith in Ireland, though recently declined, has produced a land of saints and scholars, and a civilization, despite persecution, the envy of most.
Do you not realise that sheer mockery and ridicule of a person’s cherished beliefs is offensive and causes retaliation.
It does not bother me if you have many shy, invisible readers in addition to the scant number who dare utter a word. I don’t recall witnessing a BOTB entering into any discussion. This is after all your mission in life(what’s left of it). You’ll need some better credentials for whomever you wish to be your superior Super Atom -in-charge after earthly death, and hear those words: “Well done, true and faithful servant. Enter into my kingdom”.
C’mon you timid non believers, give Frank some credentials.
LikeLike
Thom,
All contingent entities come into existence, go out of existence, and what’s more, they do not bring themselves into existence. Some prior contingent entity causes another to come into existence. as an example, consider the life of a plant or animal or human. What is at the very start of the chain of entities or causes that result in any visible, touchable, material entity that exists or has existed or will exist.?
I’m sure I’ve given you this same train of questioning many times, in slightly different terms. You can’t avoid considering the starting point for the whole process for any physical thing you can think of.
Inevitably, there is a starting point. the process can not go back an infinite number of steps or nothing would have ever started the process which results in every physical, observable thing.
This starting entity, I claim, always existed and nothing caused its existence.
Unless you can demonstrate some flaw in this argument, I call this entity that just existed, and was uncaused, God. What’s in a name. You may find that name repulsive, so choose another(other than super atom, or you will be plagiarising Frank).
I am using the fancy words that I expect you, among the 58 readers, will be familiar with.
Having arrived at this point, the argument can be extended to consider the possibility of more than one first causes, and this possibility discarded from reasoning. What other attributes can be deduced of this first cause. There are a few.
This is partially my first of the 6 steps.
Where is the flaw, so far?
The nature of this one first cause, God can only be partially known from logical argument, derived from what we experience in nature. This god has subsequently revealed more of His nature through revelation to thinking mankind, the pinnacle of intelligent creation.
This is logically derived from further evidence, steps 2 to 6.
I wont waste effort going ahead unless there is some serious, non diversionary mockery, from any intelligent member of the 58 club.
You may, perhaps, accept the Big Bang beginning to the universe. I have no trouble with this theory or any that might some day, supersede it.
Did some other physical event, outside our universe cause the supposed Big bang? Who knows? It does not matter much.
Whether the big bang of 13.7 billion years ago was as currently believed, all matter was sequentially produced subsequent to the first few minutes. Every atom was contingent. some atoms came into existence and were caused to change to other particles, or perhaps energy, and thus ceased to exist as originally.
Every physical thing that changes, comes into existence or goes out, is caused by something.
Can anyone give evidence that there is nothing outside of material entities? Where do the laws governing behavior of physical(material) entities come from/ Are they non physical? Some one above wanted evidence of the existence of non material entities.
What is the evidence that there are none? What are laws of nature, gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear?
Etc., etc., perhaps one of the 58 is a NOBOTB, willing to discuss.
LikeLike
No one has marked “like” to one of my comments. I feel so unloved and envious.
LikeLike
O U F !!! I have just spoiled my day, before breakfast, by reading the ravings of the Defensor Fidei. While I was sleeping, Jim, you must have spent hours writing this rubbish, which, as you have noticed, no one likes and probably few of the other commentators bother to read. The brave ones who do may wonder where what your charming wife calls “thought bubbles” come from. The bit about Ireland sounds like something one would hear in a pub, between the drunken singing of “Galway Bay” and “Hail Glorious Saint Patrick” (I knew that remark would just make your day.)
You offered to help Niels – whom I welcome warmly to the Blog that Jim is turning into a Snake Pit – with his English spelling. It is so gracious of you that I will do the same for you : clearly apostrophes in words like “cant” (!) are a challenge for you. But far worse is the misspelling of the name of our cricket champion fast bowler from our Alma Mater, Ray LindwAll. Well, well, well ! Now I can get on with my day and with my life, after I post you the printout from the WordPress statistics. I am not surprised you did not thank me in advance (you clearly see that I have left you without a foot, or a lie, to stand on). But instead of an apology for your insult, forced now to admit that there are (at least) 58 readers of the Blog, you content yourself with self-congratulations on your “more polite expressions and inferences.” “In cauda venenum”, my parting, poisonous shot : your (ab)use of this last word reveals a primary school level of English. Like so many, you confuse “implication” and “inference”. To imply is to suggest, to hint, to state indirectly. To infer is to draw a conclusion, to derive by reasoning, to deduce. (Even some Americans know the difference : “The implier is the pitcher, the inferrer is the catcher.”) I would suggest that Niels find a more qualified coach to perfect his already quite adequate English.
LikeLike
Could be because you bore people with the endless ranting.You have so much to say but you aren’t converting anyone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe Lumen’s strategy is more subtle than we give him credit for. Could it be that the reason he raves on ad nauseam is that he hopes we will finally despair and hope and pray to god he goes away.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t know why he keeps coming here when he obviously has no interest in atheists who can’t be converted.
LikeLike
I doubt if Christian websites would put up with the same type crap he puts us through.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim, whom I have known for over seventy years, is still the redhot Catholic he and I both were in primary school. Since my renouncing my religious vows and quitting the priesthood when I was 31, and ten years later becoming an atheist, Jim, the Defender of the Faith, would just love to have my head as a trophy on his wall – a renegade priest and militant atheist, converted by Jim’s famous Six Steps. People have been canonized for less. We are now both eighty, and time is running out for both of us. That’s why he hangs on in there.
LikeLike
You can just tell he has personal issues when he writes about you Frank.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I must thank both you, Stephen, and our Canadian friend, for your understanding and support. You both came on board recently and are cleared shocked by the repetitious ranting of my former friend Jim. I would like to believe that his perseverance, tenacity and energy spring from a sincere desire to get me back on the straight and narrow. But for the four years of the blog’s existence I have tried to dialogue with a closed mind, a troubled spirit and a fanatical Catholic traditionalist locked into the credulity of the forties, whose real motivation, I suspect, is simply to score points in pure polemics. When he first saw the cover of my self-published book (2011), “From Illusions to Illumination. The Itinerary of a Franciscan Priest from Catholicism to Atheism”, with a photograph of a long road leading from darkness to brilliant light, he congratulated me on the choice of the visual, a perfect image, he said, of the broad road Jesus spoke of and my destiny to end up in the fires of Hell. He now uses the blog to brainwash public school kids, revealing to them the vacuity of atheism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frank concluded his opening comment with:
‘These same cynics (you know the one I’m talking about), however, believe that God exists. I can prove that my Followers do; He cannot prove that his “God” does .’
‘Theses same cynics’ becomes’ He can not.’
So, all the cynics turns out to be one only. Applying the same logic, does he expect us to believe that ‘all his followers’ is not one only(i.e.Thom)?
I have always suspected that Frank writes to himself under various pseudonyms and remains silent under others. Hmm, very sus..
LikeLike
I’m not much into name-calling, but am getting close…….
What does all this matter to you anyway, if you’re right & the rest of us are terrible non-believing sinners that you have failed to convert?
Our lives, & deaths are none of your business!
LikeLike
Don’t under rate yourself meow, You are among the best name callers. I’m sure Frank is proud of his visible supporter.
You ,no doubt, have read Frank’s purpose, which is to convert weak Christians to his side. So, you might just say that I am trying to prevent his targets from losing their souls.
I’m not sure about converting hard core atheists. I suppose that since my ex school colleague, Frank surprised me and his former school mates with a terrible, offensive to us all, blasphemous book, full of mockery and cynicism, I took up the response on behalf of the others. It was a shock to realise that Frank was surprised with the reaction. He is incredibly thick skinned and does not understand how offensive he is to ex friends.
As Christians, Frank expects us all to turn the other cheek and cop it from him.
We would all like to see him wake up to his folly. His book does give clues as to his underlying problem, which is not in God, but much closer to home.
Like yourself, meow, he has underlying rage and a need to hit out at something. What better target than God, who is ultimately responsible for all that happens, and a source of joy for those believers who have not become bitter over perceived unfairness in life.
No rational person defies his/her natural inclination to God, and comes to atheism via the intellect, but via a rebellious will.
LikeLike
It seems that Lumen, the diminishing bright spark on the blog, is now trying to convince us that he is qualified to hang out his shingles as a Clinical Psychologist. Wow!
He is less than a convincing Theologian – unlike Frank who at least has formal qualifications in this arcane vocation. Lumen is in thrall to people like Edward Feser who makes a crust telling people, like Lumen, what he thinks Aquinas was really trying to say. Lumen, as we see, repeats himself endlessly in the belief, one assumes, that the mere length of his rants will impress someone. But, Lumen, the psychologist manque monkey, must realise that no one on this blog is particularly interested in his rants or in his personal attacks or in his amateur psychoanalysis.
I suggested many light years ago that Lumen would be better advised to start his own blog. I even suggested that I would read it – if only for the laughs. But Lumen has not seen the light. Like a moth he is drawn to the brightness of Frank’s flame.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Light years, Thom, is a measure of distance, not time. I see why I don’t get through; you are light years behind.
Doctor Edward Feser, while still an atheist, actually read Aquinas in order to disprove him.
Alas, Edward is now a fervent Catholic believer.
My young friend, Jeremy, with his recent Doctorate in Philosophy was an atheist, a few years ago. He read Aquinas and is now a fervent Catholic believer.
Neither of these brilliant men needs to admit to failing in Doctoral studies, like your own guru.
Have you read Feser’s ” The Last Superstition-a refutation of the new atheism”? Read and compare his brilliance with the lamentable effort of your pin-up boy.
I’m not bothered that no one on this blog is interested in my rants, since neither one of you is a BOTB.
LikeLike
Thom wrote : “Lumen has not seen the light. Like a moth he is drawn by the brightness of Frank’s flame.” I would remind Thom, and all those other readers whose existence, in spite of proof to the contrary, Jim denies, that for our humble “Light of Light”, “Frank’s flame” has only one meaning : the fires of hell to which he has condemned me for writing my book and blog. Readers may recall that this was his comment on the book’s cover, a photo of a road leading from the darkness of Illusions to the bright light of Illumination, which Jim saw as Hell. Jim learned sadism from the Bible.
LikeLike
I never claimed to be a theologian, Thom, as I am not. Is that quite clear?
Frank is not either, and has scant partial qualifications.
It’s like a grade 2 piano student claiming to be a qualified musician.
I don’t want to be cruel to Frank in repeatedly reminding you and him of this reality. However, we can’t go through life pretending. In his own self interest it is better for Frank(and even yourself) to realise what and where he is and to make a “mea culpa” to God, whom he has mocked, and therefore, like yourself, been cut off from the light of reason.
You might recall Antony Flew, even some 8 years older than Frank, when in front of a packed audience, waiting to hear the world champion of atheism denounce God and Christianity, he approached the microphone and announced “I am no longer atheist”.
Stunned silence! Disbelief! Awaiting punch line, none! Everything disbelieved in shattered.
Thanks to emerging science, once again, he now had the evidence of DNA analysis to convince him of his errors;evidence unavailable to him for his 50 years as atheist darling.
What a dream! Imagine, one morning, meow, who reads everything ever written by her suave pin-up, dashing to her PC to devour Frank’s caption:
” I AM NO LONGER ATHEIST”. ” I now see the emerging, irrefutable evidence of the SHROUD, not available to me in earlier days”.
Science is, naturally, the ally of truth seekers, not truth deniers. Oh yes! talking of science: Do remember, Thom, and repeat 3 times: Light year is the distance travelled by light in 1 year. Get it? Got it. Good.
LikeLike
Antony Flew didn’t become a Christian far from it. He came to believe that there was Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. Just the old argument of the god of the gaps. “If science cant explain it must god”
.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am envious of Thom’s popularity.
2 people liked the following. No one ever ticks my like box.
Thom said:
“Maybe Lumen’s strategy is more subtle than we give him credit for. Could it be that the reason he raves on ad nauseam is that he hopes we will finally despair and hope and pray to god he goes away”.
Funny,Thom. Very witty, indeed! Chapeaux!! Careful, Frank! Thom may steal away your pin-up status from devotees who hang on your every pearl.
Thom made the mistake of praying to God. Does Thom really expect the omnipotent God to jump through the hoop of His avowed enemy, and acquiesce to his fervent petition?
I would be very disappointed in such a timid and cowering deity.
It shows that Thom has no clue to the nature of the Infinite non existent Being Who controls every breath, heart beat and action of his existent creature.
Remember, Thom: you are contingent and did not have to exist, but you do. Of necessity, there is a non contingent being, the first cause of your every action, who is, of necessity, non contingent.
Repeat 3 times, Thom (after your light year homework, of course).
Aquinas in easy, daily doses!
Will someone please tick my like box? My ambition is to be liked by someone, even an atheist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Poor Lumen, I was on the Brink of ticking his box instead of ticking him off but realized that I would be accused of being MeToo.
Lumen, old chap, it’s not that I dislike you, it’s just that I think you’re nuts.
Your obsession with the Shroud is evidence enough of that – confirmed of course by your long long long pointless and endless, almost eternal comments.
Surely you realize that BOTBs begin their journey of self discovery and self confidence by questioning just some of the more absurd claims of their particular faith. The point of the blog is to demonstrate to them that intelligent, charming, rational and informed people like, well I’ll leave that up to your fertile imagination, have blazed a trail before them.
LikeLike
There you go, Jim ! Finally someone has ticked your box. It would be too obvious to say that the Devil made me do it. In fact, it is to congratulate you. For two reasons :
1. “Thom has no clue to the nature of the Infinite non existent Being Who etc.” This is the big difference between you and Thom. Neither of you has such a clue, but Thom is honest enough to admit it.
2. You have added a pearl, dear erudite James, to my collection of pleonasms : “Of necessity, there is a non contingent being.” Need I remind you that “non-contingent” means “necessary” ? That should be plenty enough for you.
The saddest thing about statements like these, dear chap, is that you can’t blame them on your senescence, on the fact that at eighty you are losing your marbles. You have always thought like this, rattling off nonsense without realizing that only people as blind as yourself would not notice. After all these years, you have finally run into someone who won’t let you get away with it. I should bill you for the education I have been giving you these last four years. But I have decided to give up and to throw in the towel. Like your First Cause, you, James, are a Lost Cause.
LikeLike
I could have not put it better myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t you get it, Frank?
“Of necessity, there is a non contingent being.” means “there has to be a necessary being “. Think it through.
LikeLike
Shooting yourself in the foot and now putting a bullet in your brain ! To say that something is a “non-contingent” being, is to say that it is a “necessary” being. To add “of necessity” is really not necessary. It is, in fact, a pleonasm – like “plenty enough”, Webster’s Dictionary’s own example, in case you once again missed the irony. You used to be so intelligent.
LikeLike
Thank you for the compliment Frank. If you say so, I must have intelligent and you will be happy to know that I have not lost any of that non contingent gift from God.
LikeLike
Stephen said;
“Antony Flew didn’t become a Christian far from it. He came to believe that there was Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. Just the old argument of the god of the gaps. “If science cant explain it must god”.
He was awarded 2 “like” stars. Well done, Stephen!
I accept what you say, nor did I claim any more than you say. You will note that I did not claim that Flew became Christian, although I believe he may have been heading that way in his few remaining years (although if you have contrary evidence, I will accept it).
You may recall that prominent physicist, Fred Hoyle made a similar pronouncement after realizing that life could not have accidentally formed from inanimate matter; that there was an obvious intelligence involved. This lead to the anthropic principle.
For Flew to say “I am no longer atheist” is saying ” I no longer claim that there is no God” since atheism is the flat denial of a God.
Do Frank and Thom, unlike Flew and Hoyle, claim absolutely that there is no God?That is what atheism is.
The great scholastic philosophers, like Aquinas, did not favour “God of the gaps” arguments for the existence of God either, as they only point to an initial divine source, rather than the ongoing necessity of divine involvement in every happening.
The Aquinas type arguments from philosophy, or more specifically, metaphysics are far more powerful, akin to mathematical proofs from deduction. These arguments depend on a few self evident observations from nature, like the observation that things change. Who can deny this?
From previous postings by Frank and Thom, I am near certain that they do not appreciate this and suppose that all theist arguments are of “God of the gaps” nature; far from it. Unfortunately both responded with ridicule and sarcasm, rather than serious argument, in their typical fashion of hiding their deficiency.
Frank came up with the well worn, predictable response; “Then who made God? gotcha!”. This amateur response indicates the complete lack of understanding of Aquinas and his reasoning, and the suspicion that he has has not bothered to follow it, or else was incapable of grasping the basic, self evident concepts.
LikeLike