Sentences with phrase «argument about the existence»

Lets dispense with the creationism argument... this is really an argument about the existence of God (God being the necessary precursor for any «creationist» event).

I can't spot any direct argument about the existence of god besides the first one?

The arguments about the existence of god have all been exhausted.

It is useful to bring out in the open the (il) logic behind these types of distracting and mostly irrelevant arguments about the existence of said vineyards.

The scientific argument about the existence of climate change itself is long since over.

Not exact matches

But in order to say anything useful about ethical issues in the marketplace, you first need to understand something about how markets work, how they fail, and what the ethical argument for their existence is.

And those that don't say that stuff instead opting to argue and dissect and article or argument for / about god doesn't show they make any positive claims to the existence of such a being, but instead to show how ridiculous and irrational somethings are.

And to the arguments we already have about the killing of embryos, we need to add arguments about the conditions under which we may bring those embryos into existence in the first place.

One insight provided by Hartshorne's work on the ontological argument is that the concept of the existence of God is something akin to a regulative idea for the rational thought about reality which is attempted in Hartshorne's metaphysics.

It is the problematic character of this step which makes the ontological argument unsatisfactory as a proof of God's existence although in the case of Hartshorne himself it was perhaps taken, implicitly if not explicitly, when, as he tells us, «about the age of seventeen, after reading Emerson's Essays, I made up my mind (doubtless with a somewhat hazy notion of what I was doing) to trust reason to the end» (LP viii).

If the article above was written by a grown adult about the existence of Santa Claus, and if that argument was essentially based on asserting Santa Claus» existence based on faith and the popularity of the Santa Claus myth, then anyone would be justified in scorning those beliefs, especially when that argument extends to declaring that recent findings confirm the existence of Santa (after all, children are still receiving Christmas gifts).

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

A typical Hartshornian restatement of Anselm's argument in the language of modern modal logic runs about like this: Since God is by definition not conceivably surpassable, and since a being whose existence is necessary surpasses one whose existence is merely contingent, therefore, God's existence must be necessary existence.

Harishorne repeatedly reiterates his affirmation that the theistic arguments only demonstrate the existence of God and that they tell us nothing whatever about God's concrete actuality.

[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as «an evidence - based scientific theory about life's origins» rather than «a religious - based idea».

Instead we are taken on a gentle tour of three arguments put forward for atheism:» [T] hat conflicts fought in the name of religion are always about religion; that it is ultimately possible to know with confidence what is right and what is wrong without acknowledging the existence of God; and that atheist states are not actually atheist.»

My argument is that while science does tell us much about the world around us, IT (science - our most favored epistemological standard) obviously only deals with the physical and can not disprove the spiritual, and that there are other ways of knowing truth that do prove (support is the word I prefer, since no «proof» is satisfactory to al epistemological standards) the existence of God.

since none exists, atheists lack the moral authority and the common sense to make credible arguments about god's existence and his character

In fact, two gems from Pascal's Pénsées would make for perfect epigrams with which to begin and end Kugel's book: «The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me» (which sums up his argument about the absolute «smallness» and «silence» that circumscribe our existence and lead us to transcendence), and, «The heart has its reasons, which reason can not understand,» (which sums up his argument against rational reductionism).

Although Hasker concludes this argument by pointing out that for it too «it is God who is responsible for the existence of creatures who have the freedom and power to bring about great evils,» I had explicitly said that «God is responsible for [the distinctively human forms of evil on our planet] in the sense of having encouraged the world in the direction that made these evils possible» (Process 75; cf. God 308 - 09).

In the article, we first present a set of illustrative graphs about the factors that this article's argument is about: the existence of regional variation in support for redistribution among the rich and among the poor, the regional patters of inequality and fear of crime, etc..

Additional concerns about the fourth premise were also raised (i.e. «is the federal government really more efficient at managing such efforts»), but arguments about the effectiveness of the department are really ancillary to the justification for its existence in the first place.

This unit is about exploring philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God.

Info and task sheet based on belief about God 2 sets example exam answers to mark Set of info posters on God's existence that I used as a walk around activity Mini (A5 size) revision cards with spaces, questions etc for students to complete and use as revision Starter activity sheet focusing on arguments for God's existence

David Archer's argument that there's nothing to worry about methane is based on the continued existence of the sea ice.

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»

Our previous post, and one the week before looked at the arguments emerging from climate activists about what to make of the existence of an email news circular, operated by Marc Morano, the Communications Director at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, under Republican Senator James Inhofe.

Whatever the truth of Cambridge Analytica's claims, the very existence of such companies tells us something important about the weight that unconscious influence, relative to reasoned argument, now plays in political campaigns.