Sentences with phrase «kafka-esque circular argument»
Experts insist that whatever the circumstances, there is always something positive for you to covertly do while your colleagues discuss irrelevant information or engage in circular arguments.
https://www.inc.com/
Go take your circular arguments...
Without mutual deference then never ending circular arguments persist with a lot of pissed off and exhausted people.
I used no circular argument... i noticed you did not critique anything i stated other than to call it circular.
How much weight do you think your circular argument carries?
Who would ever imagine that a book written to control the masses through fear and guilt would ever predict that some would question its validity??? My 5th grader could have come up with random statements to support this circular argument.
For the kids at home, this shabby assertion that biblical words equates truth is how we get circular arguments.
You keep saying that, but all I've seen are versions of the circular argument that your god is real because it says so in the bible, and that the bible is real because it is the word of your god.
Circular arguments and grammar checking.
Your circular arguments are simply misrepresentations of how rocks and fossils are dated.
Theo, You have repeatedly demonstrated a circular argument that assumes a first cause.
Steve, it's OK to rely on Matthew 7:6 with these folks that love their circular arguments.
BTW all your apologist revelations are just circular arguments, your lot chasing your tails / tale.
That argument assumes a first cause, thus becoming a circular argument.
The ultimate circular argument.
You're making circular arguments, and you're also misusing the term «belief», applying to the same meaning as «faith».
Even you acknowledge that the Bible is not proof unless you already believe in its accuracy and veracity, a classic circular argument.
Johnny — That's a circular argument with no basis in fact.
@Observer: Sorry, you are making a circular argument.
Not convincing» which is funny circular argument because you state that everyone of that age «average education level of individuals is higher now than in the dark ages» so by your standard nothing of that age can be verified?
It's a circular argument with no real beginning or ending... «I am great»... «Why»... «Because I said so.»
Kent, you babbled» «It amazes me that you'll believe the liars of this world that care less about your soul, but when Christians that actually read His truth tell you what He wants, you go into circular arguments that proves that you can talk / type but does nothing for loving and following Jesus.»
That's quite the circular argument there!
Since it is impossible to prove god exists or does not exist, this book is likely a complicated series of circular arguments.
Circular argument.
It amazes me that you'll believe the liars of this world that care less about your soul, but when Christians that actually read His truth tell you what He wants, you go into circular arguments that proves that you can talk / type but does nothing for loving and following Jesus.
This kind of circular argument may feel like logic to you, but it is fallacious.
It's really a circular argument.
NO CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS please.
No high authority or circular argument needed.
Well, FAITH, there's the problem... that gibberish in the bible was just made up by «some guy» to keep the peasants behaving in a manner that whomever wrote it thought was a good way to behave... some of those guys were wise, yes, and there are benefits to following some of the «guidelines» set forth in the Bible... but it's a circular argument to use the Bible as a reason to have faith, because you have to first BELIEVE in the deity, THEN believe that the deity inspired the writings, THEN you can take the writings as «truth»... I'm two steps back, not believing in the deity at all (Yay, Atheists!
If you claim this is contradiction, you are causing a circular argument.
------ What???? What a crazy circular argument.
That kind of circular argument even goes back to explanations of the origin of the universe — according to the big bang theory (which I don't really have a problem with in the «big picture»).
see... YOu get caught in a circular argument... with your logic
you crap on the atheists and those who question god, but then you answer everything with the simplistic answer that it is all due to god and he exists because he said so... SO IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE PHYSICS AND LOGIC YOU TALK ABOUT THEN YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR OWN MATHEMATICS CALLS OUT YOUR GOD THEORY AS A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT... YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO CONTINUE TO USE YOUR ARGUMENT
Why am I not surprised that a believer brings a circular argument?
Laughing is that a circular argument where life begins and ends at the place God first created it?
Also, I don't think you know what a circular argument.
[2] The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance...»
Read up on it and then please refrain from making such absurd circular arguments.
To avoid circular arguments, biochemical and physiological methods, independent of human milk, are used to define these requirements.
To blame the situation on the lack of confidence in him by fellow Labour MPs is a circular argument: they have no confidence because he is useless.
«It becomes a circular argument until we get better biomarkers.»
Thus, it seems like a circular argument: to produce methane (by microbes), one needs methane.
It seem like a circular argument; addiction proves palatability.
Teacher and school improvement is driven by the notion of improving teaching and schools, which is kind of a circular argument.
I'd guess he means research characterized by measurement and research expert Gerald Bracey as «a circular argument which defines effective teachers as those who raise test scores, then uses test score gains to determine who's an effective teacher.»
My impression is that since GCR affects the isotope ratio but Tsurf often affects different isotopes differently, the analysis easily gets tangled up (circular argument?).
V: You need to be more specific if you want to accuse him of presenting a circular argument.