But where is truth?
Is it in your innumerable worlds, some of which are rising, some falling, at every moment of time?
Or is it in your atomical corpuscles, which form such excellent works without the direction of any natural power or reason?
But I was forgetting my liberality, which I had promised to exert in your case, and exceeding the bounds which I at first proposed to myself.

Granting, then, everything to be made of atoms, what advantage is that to your argument?
For we are searching after the nature of the Gods; and allowing them to be made of atoms, they cannot be eternal, because whatever is made of atoms must have had a beginning: if so, there were no Gods till there was this beginning; and if the Gods have had a beginning, they must necessarily have an end, as you have before contended when you were discussing Plato's world.

Where, then, is your beatitude and immortality, in which two words you say that God is expressed, the endeavor to prove which reduces you to the greatest perplexities?
For you said that God had no body, but something like body; and no blood, but something like blood.
XXV.

It is a frequent practice among you, when you assert anything that has no resemblance to truth, and wish to avoid reprehension, to advance something else which is absolutely and utterly impossible, in order that it may seem to your adversaries better to grant that point which has been a matter of doubt than to keep on pertinaciously contradicting you on every point: like Epicurus, who, when he found that if his atoms were allowed to descend by their own weight, our actions could not be in our own power, because their motions would be certain and necessary, invented an expedient, which escaped Democritus, to avoid necessity.

He says that when the atoms descend by their own weight and gravity, they move a little obliquely.