Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

1.) All instruments of measure – whether used for static measures e.g., dimensions, or for measuring dynamic physical parameters (e.g., time, frequency, pressure, resistance, inductance, reactance, voltage etc.), and whether in business, medicine, laboratories or industry – require calibration (to ensure measurable error is rendered tolerable), or standardization; even self-calibrating instruments (these are generally virtual) require calibration, and calibration implies a standard.


2.) Musical instruments too need a form of calibration i.e., tuning, and all musical instruments which may be tuned will be “out of tune” even if not played, after a period of time… Tuning formerly was much of what Electronic Technicians – whether communications techs or radar techs – occupied themselves with e.g., aligning stages of amplifiers… Thus, tuning – whether musical instruments or electronic devices – work toward the same goal i.e., calibration i.e., bringing an instrument into a proximate agreement with a standard…

Trending: The Definitive List of things Democrats have Done to America


take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

3.) All measures are contingencies of the fundamental instrument of measure, viz: the human mind. The human mind’s very essence1 is to measure the objective world of existents and to come to know that which is through both qualitative and quantitative measures; that same human mind is the instrument which gives measure to all instruments of measure begging a number of questions, to wit: “By what means is the human mind calibrated?” And: “To what standard is it calibrated?” And: “From whence has it received its’ measure i.e., its character/form/essence/eidos?”


1 Essence i.e., forms i.e., character i.e., eidos i.e., the mind’s essence is its activity, which is to know – through judgment – the natures of that which is other, and in their relations… Such knowledge – as Aristotle explains, and Aquinas grounds – is acquired, in judgment as the mind intentionally becomes the other…


4.) Now either the mind is calibrated in acquiescence to an objectively ordered reality* upon which the mind depends – this presupposes realist epistemology; or the mind ascribes order (measure) to that which is other i.e., to existence – this is idealism, particularly the critical idealism of Kant… If the mind does not acquiesce to that which is by default the subjective mind ascribes to the objectively ordered other (reality) its character, thereby reducing that which is to the subjective mind**.

* Whereby – in judgment – reality’s measure i.e., character (essence/form), is revealed; classically this relation – when corresponding – is known as truth (realistic epistemology i.e., theory-of-knowledge ala Aristotle/Saint Thomas Aquinas); details of that epistemology are beyond this scope of the blog-post…


            ** Its character -the character of the individual’s ‘reality’ – is an idealistic chimera, a product of idealism – particularly the critical idealism of Immanuel Kant; Kant posits his epistemology in The Critiques of Pure Reason (1781 – iteration 1; 1784 iteration 2); that theory-of-knowledge is also not the subject of this blog post. We will note that Kant – too – unconsciously presupposes God; although he contends he has reduced God’s existence to an antinomy; but intelligent order is meaningless, unless intelligence orders reality, whether the reality is objective, or subjective. Thus, Kant’s critique presupposes God. Moreover, all arguments which argue that there is no God, presuppose God, or such arguments are meaningless, as all arguments would then be…


5.) Agnostics and Atheists2 make rather subtly compelling arguments for agnosticism and atheism, but each – too – presuppose (consciously or otherwise) an intelligent correlation (correspondence) between their minds and that which is not their mind; that correspondence presupposes God as its guarantor, or all meaning is illusory, and the logically consistent nihilist fails and makes no argument, whatsoever… Such a presupposition contradicts atheism and renders agnosticism inane; moreover, it demonstrates those which argue to advance atheism, or agnosticism to be rather dull… Although, the atheist (and the agnostic) may – consciously, or otherwise – subscribe to a pragmatic nihilism e.g., Nietzscheanism, which allows them to seek power, by whatever means are necessary.

                2 For example, Andre Comte-Sponville, Luc Ferry; note: that both gentlemen are amiable enough, and both seem genuinely caring and sincere…


6.) Note: In part, the intellectual force of arguments posited by the modern atheists and agnostics e.g., the arguments fielded by the likes of Andre Comte-Sponville, Luke Ferry et al – are based, or rest, upon redefining terms e.g., philosophy3 so as to prescind/bracket the classical philosophers; this is done particularly, and explicitly, with sundry Christian philosophers, but includes Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; the intermingling of metaphysics and ontologies – by these classical philosophers – make them unacceptable for to modern thinkers to allow them to be included amongst philosophers qua philosophy… Much of what they argue rests upon generous – unmentioned, perhaps unconscious, presuppositions – thus, they argue as intellectual parasites, subsisting upon a weltanschauung which they view as inherently false…

3 Philosophy – classically – has been defined as: “Love of wisdom” and classically wisdom has been defined as: “A discernment of limits…” Thus, classical Philosophy has meant the love – or desire – for the possession of the limits of knowledge… Such a definition intimates an ultimate i.e., God, and thus all philosophers, which are philosophers, must contend with the “elephant in the room” (i.e., God) if for no other reason than to dispense with the concept; if they may… Ferry allows this largely to be sidestepped by defining “philosophy” as: ‘Salvation apart from a God, or otherworldliness.’ Comte-Sponville – the more explicitly Atheistic (born and raised a Catholic, and believer until he says he was about 18 years old) is not so duplicitous, in my opinion, as is Ferry – is in fact familiar with Catholic teaching, and – except for belief in God – pretty much still accepts those teachings; holding them necessary for sustaining an ordered culture/society… Ferry proposes a definition – of philosophy – which omits Augustine, Aquinas and many things uttered (by Socrates) – or written by Plato and Aristotle; his discussions of the ancient Greeks devote little space to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (they spoke/wrote many things which may be closely aligned with Christian thinkers), instead he amplifies pre-Socratics and epigones in buttressing his understanding/definition of philosophy.


7.) All arguments, as all measures, presuppose – [to include “proofs for God’s existence and also including “theories of everything” offered by semi-confused theoretical physicists e.g., Stephen Hawking, which/whom may have been accomplished in mathematics, but which – by their involvement in metaphysics – validate Einstein’s assertion: “It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher.”] – the correspondence of the human mind with ‘comprehensibly incomprehensible universe’ which Einstein references; for all veridical arguments assume that correspondence – the correspondence of the mind, with that which not the mind – and that correspondence may only be assured as calibrated (i.e., valid) by an objectively ordered existence which receives its measure from a transcendent creative intelligent ordering principle i.e., God.


8.) Addendum: For any given set of axioms, nothing may be derived from those axioms in contradiction with those axioms; if reality is intelligently ordered and intelligence beings arise within that reality, it is because intelligence is consistent with the axioms of reality i.e., reality reflects a transcendent creative ordering principle i.e., God.


9.) Because those which claim themselves to be atheists or agnostics, often claim themselves adherents to “science,” and then dismiss arguments – such as the argument made above – rather than attempting to refute the argument, we must end this missive by indicating that science too, presupposes God; those which argue otherwise contradict themselves and indicate their utter dishonesty, or their utter stupidity, or both…

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by



Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Send this to a friend