Sentences with phrase «argued from many»

The Defendant to the litigation had not relied on the warranty, having argued from the outset that the person instructing the solicitors lacked authority to do so

You have argued from a particular circumstance to the universal application of it, Well done.

I think that any argument based on global temperatures must at least be supported when argued from ocean temperatures.

Montford argued from this quote that our research was a public relations exercise rather than a scientific investigation.

It can not be argued from an economic, social, environmental, or ethical perspective.

For any french reader in the assistance I would strongly recomend «la litterrature sans estomac» by Pierre Jourde which is an hilarious (yet very thoroughly argued from a literary perpective) book on the parisian literary purists: the «Germanoprantins» aka people from St Germain des Près.

That's an argument for someone far more intelligent than I, as it's a debate that could be argued from many, many different viewpoints.

«We have argued from the very beginning that it doesn't make sense to distil complex sets of data into a single, raw figure.

Bender and other voucher advocates have argued from the start that no such discrimination exists, an argument Bender says is enforced by the DOJ's closure of the investigation.

It can be argued from different perspective that dating websites offers a more practical and easy way to find a potential partner.

In general, proponents have argued from the grounds of theoretical analysis coupled with the existence of multiple plausible implementation pathways from current technology, while opponents have been unimpressed with theoretical arguments in the absence of direct experimental demonstration of crucial milestones.

Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama who argued from the skeptical side, agrees that human contributed carbon dioxide lessens the planet's ability to shed heat, meaning that warming is likely.

A bravely unfashionable outing for John Baron (short on supporters for his peacenik viewpoint) but sincere nevertheless and outstanding speeches by a host of colleagues, particularly Ben Wallace, who argued from a position of expertise as the joint Chair of the All Party Group on Iran that it was vital to allow political and diplomatic efforts to be exhausted before committing ourselves to miltary action.

«That reform is much better argued from a position where you passionately believe in the benefits that can arise from EU membership than if your counterparts believe you have a hidden agenda which is essentially to destroy the EU and all its works,» he said.

Noakes12 recently argued from the data of Baldwin et al13 that when exercise was performed at a constant work rate (thus negating any effect of pacing strategy) to volitional fatigue in either a glycogen - loaded or glycogen - depleted state, performance time was determined by the rate at which the RPE rose from its starting value to a maximal tolerable value.

With some prodding he did say, «Statistically, thesave has been argued from every standpoint.

Some of the selections simply can't be argued from a bigger picture.

Instead, he argued from a mass of evidence collected in different parts of the world, that «species» had originated by natural selection, by adaptation to the environment and by gradual evolution.

That Luke is dependent upon Mark, or the tradition which Mark is using, in Luke 22.69 is, we believe, to be argued from the way in which he maintains the Semitic circumlocution for God, «Power», while adding «of God» for the sake of his Gentile readers who may not understand the construction.

That «secular» literature might have meant something to someone in Solomon's court has been argued from time to time about certain proverbs and wisdom texts, but not about texts where God is the main actor in the story — and certainly not in the manner of Bloom, where J suddenly sounds like a skeptical college professor who is much more «mature and sophisticated» than the believers in his midst and their God.

It might be argued from the analogy of Gen. 2 - 3 that in the faith of Israel the sin of Saul is essentially the sin of all men.

Defending Balthasar against Scanlon, he cited the passages from the Pope's Crossing the Threshold of Hope mentioned above and referred also to his own book, Death on a Friday Afternoon, in which he had argued from several New Testament texts that although we can not be certain, we may indeed hope and pray for the salvation of all.

Those who argued from the fundamentalist approach were always going to be in the minority.

However it is then argued from one belief to another why one's brand of belief is not a cult.

He argued from the Qur» an and early Muslim history that Islam is a doctrine of self - assertion which teaches man to work for the attainment of worldly power and to attempt the conquest of the self and the non-self.

And most importantly, it would have to be cogently argued from Scripture.

The first thing to note is that the problem of suffering in the world is not really a logical objection to God's existence, which can still be argued from the unity and coherence of creation on rational grounds.

Biblical claims are argued from an unfalsified standpoint.

In 1774, Thomas Jefferson wrote» A Summary View of the Rights of British America,» in which he argued from inside that tradition, while reconciliation still seemed possible.

As for ProShares, «you could argue from a business point of view that was a good decision because they're now going to get a lot of the [Credit Suisse] XIV refugees.»

It has something to do with acknowledging that, in its very essence, all reasoning involves a venture of trust in an original orientation of truth to the mind and of the mind to truth, and in the ultimate unity of the two; and that, therefore, any attempt to argue from rational premises to rational conclusions that resolutely refuses to invoke what is and has always been revealed — in the mind's most primordial encounter with reality — is not really a process of reasoning at all, but a journey toward absurdity.

But anyways... I just realized that he was arguing from his understanding of a mean, vengeful God and, all of the sudden, I just didn't care so much what he thought.

Just because I have a very strong position to argue from?

That means they'll better appreciate different types of evidence and will be more likely to argue from and about that evidence rather than from emotion.

(2) Argue from your own personal [mystical] experience, tell them what «God» is really like (3) Confront all God talk: disempower both their and your own bullshit

You make incorrect assumptions and than argue from a position of ignorance.

You seem to be arguing from an «intelligent design» perspective, in order to prove something is designed you would have to have a non-designed «thing» to compare it to.

In fact you could argue from history that the more persecuted Christianity is in a culture the stronger it has grown.

One might think that such «scholars» would learn not to speak with such assurance when arguing from silence.]»

He is not suggesting by that it is proof the historical document of concern is true, rather, he is advising that method — arguing from silence — should not be used to refute historical documents.

The vast majority of atheists I've heard from, including on comment sections like this one, argue from emotional standpoints.

If we can not argue to this starting point, however, we can argue from it.

«The main Business of natural Philosophy is to argue from Phenomena without feigning Hypotheses, and to deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the very first Cause, which certainly is not mechanical.»

Philosophers often throw around the phrase ex nihilo, meaning «out of nothing,» to argue from a logical standpoint that nothing can only give rise to more nothingness.

What you do is argue from authority with endless quotes from «professors».

So today, if a teacher begins to argue from Scripture that Jesus was either not fully divine or fully human, we'll rehearse the biblical passages and the traditional interpretations of those passages that have stood the test of time.

Thinkers arguing from the most diverse perspectives....

A post-Enlightenment public square sounds positively tribal: it would mean Muslims arguing for Shari'a law and Christians arguing from the Bible about sexual ethics.

There were objections made against these «proofs» like the one made by Kant who noted that one can not argue from finite causes to the Infinite Cause, because from the finite all one gets is the finite.

Adele and Peter Walker (at Emerging Christian blog) will attempt to put Rollins» words into practice through a cooperative blog series about what it means to argue from weakness.