First in, best dressed; Atheists, worst dressed

Atheist in a Flying Spaghetti Monster costume

Australians are such classy people. They use the idiom "first in, best dressed" which means the same as, "first come, first served". Did you know that?

Well, I didn't so had to google  a little. And this came up:

Haha! Apparently, it's not that popular. But I did see a reliable, logical explanation:

Idiom Definitions for 'First up, best dressed'

First up, best dressed comes from big families; the first child awake wore the best clothes, so if you are first to do something, you are ahead or have an advantage. Similar to the early bird catches the worm.(First in, best dressed is also used.) 

---

• Contributed By: Dean Turner

• Category: Clothes

• View examples in Google: First up, best dressed

SOURCE: https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/first+up+best+dressed.html 

Simply fantastic. And sounds cool too, makes you think it's a fashionista term.

But before I was able to find that reference, I stumbled upon this:

I believe it originated from an old Latin proverb...  

`prior tempore, prior jure.' 
[First in time, first by right.] 
[First come, first served.] 
@`Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary' Deluxe Second Edition. 1964 Simon & Schuster 

SOURCE: https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081222043017AADcK1j


Prior tempore, prior jure. You got to love those latin maxims! Dura lexx sed lex!

Anyway, going back to that last definition, first in, best dressed did not come from that latin proverb. "First come, first served" did. But that phrase prior tempore, prior jure stuck in my mind like an LSS...

prior jure...

prior jure...

jure...

De Jure...

De facto... de jure!

You got to love word association! I then remembered a perfect reasoning, a most wonderful, most beautiful argument against atheism. It's called the de facto and the de jure question.

The de jure (by right) question is the validity question, i.e, is it logical to believe in God? Is it rational? Is it rightful to believe in such a supernatural being?

The de facto question on the other hand is the existence question itself: Does God exist?

When I remembered that, I almost heard a ch-ch-ching ch-ching sound. More like a tt-ting ting sound. Well, to be exact a Platinga name. A professior Alvin Platinga.

Here he is:

Let me try to translate that into non-klingon.

Just like first in, best dressed, there is an order of things. In the atheism arguments, there is no need to start with the de jure question if one cannot answer that one basic, ultimate question the de facto question. What kind of atheist can know a thing like that? They cannot disprove the existence of God. It's impossible. They cannot experiment on it, they do not have the tools for it. They are poorly dressed for it.