Sentences with phrase «argument presented on»

Having now sat through two Watt's tour talks I can safely say you can drive a truck through many (not all) of the arguments presented on the Watts tour.

Not exact matches

The most compelling argument presented against cash is on the grounds of efficiency.

In a recent interview with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg TV, Cuban presented an interesting argument against people pursuing so - hot - right - now computer science degrees or attending learn - to - code bootcamps.

Carney's forceful letter to Jenkin comes the day after former Conservative leaders Lord Howard and Iain Duncan Smith launched an aggressive attack on the Remain camp, calling out its «startling dishonesty» and the «woeful failure» of the Bank of England to present a fair economic argument.

On Thursday in Federal district court in San Francisco, Uber and the drivers presented their arguments before Judge Edward Chen.

«The company has yet to present a convincing argument on what synergies can come from the merger», a lawyer for Elliott argued.

This article looks at both sides of the argument by presenting the facts on how the amount of Social Security benefits you'll receive can change depending on the age that you claim them.

There are many offerings on youtube that present both arguments.

Although they were firmly on opposite sides of the fence, Ham and Nye presented their arguments calmly and respectfully.

On the reading I propose, the Reformation schism was brought about instead by contingent human choices in a confused historical context defined less by clear and principled theological argument (though that of course was present) than by a peculiar and distinctively sixteenth - century combination of overheated and ever - escalating polemics, cold - blooded Realpolitik, and fervid apocalyptic dreaming.

The present discussion on the gap provides no convincing argument that the technology owners will change their attitudes and policies towards the international transfer of technology.

If sociologists have tended to center on the foregoing argument and to single out work as the basis of their assessment of our present inability to play authentically, theologians and philosophers have tended to: focus upon a second area: America's distorted value structure that has accepted as true the «mindscape» of technology 48 This is Theodore Roszak's phrase, and his discussion can perhaps serve as a helpful starting point.

The question is presented as part of a larger discussion on the nature of philosophical and imperial authority, yet it is clear that the imperial part of the argument is not necessary to its main thrust, as a result standing out all the more.

Having once been an agnostic, I know most of the arguments unbelievers use, I use most of them myself... I also know for a fact that you can not argue someone into a belief in God, they have to get their on their own, with the evidence presented for Him...

Shalom's argument against the former relies on Grice's notion of «present total temporary states,» Shalom totally includes memory as an element in a «present total temporary state» and within this context charges that «what is called «memory» necessarily ceases to possess the property of «pastness» which is associated with memory» and required by Hartshorne's theory.

Later on in the book, he discusses these groups at some length, but without seeing how these millions of fervent believers in our present undermine his central argument for declension.

Instead they (atheists) simply don't believe any of the god claims that have been put forth (this requires no proof on their part), and * may * claim that they are convinced some god concepts that have been presented to them do not exist (this requires supporting argument).»

Instead they simply don't believe any of the god claims that have been put forth (this requires no proof on their part), and * may * claim that they are convinced some god concepts that have been presented to them do not exist (this requires supporting argument).

The argument of this paper was presented at the meeting of the Society for the Study of Process Philosophy on March 18.

Indeed, to the best of my knowledge Hartshorne does not explicitly link his position on creation with his position on relativity, contingency, and potentiality, as he does link the latter with his position on temporality.13 On the other hand, he does present other arguments against the traditional position, none of which seem tome to have any substancon creation with his position on relativity, contingency, and potentiality, as he does link the latter with his position on temporality.13 On the other hand, he does present other arguments against the traditional position, none of which seem tome to have any substancon relativity, contingency, and potentiality, as he does link the latter with his position on temporality.13 On the other hand, he does present other arguments against the traditional position, none of which seem tome to have any substancon temporality.13 On the other hand, he does present other arguments against the traditional position, none of which seem tome to have any substancOn the other hand, he does present other arguments against the traditional position, none of which seem tome to have any substance.

She states, «In my book, I'm trying to present models of men and women who are friends and lovers, who respect and trust each other, who get mad and scream at each other and who settle their arguments and go on.

Although I shall not spell out the argument here, I think that there is an implicit contradiction in holding that we depend on God, who timelessly knows all our acts, past or future as they may be for us now, and yet our present reality does not necessitate our future acts.

Part of the answer is that these ancient events are moments in a living process which includes also the existence of the church at the present day; and another part is that, as Christians believe, in these events of ancient time God was at work among men, and it is from his action in history rather than from abstract arguments that we learn what God is like, and what are the principles on which he deals with men, now as always.

His posts are reliably written on a level, both gramatically and in terms of presenting his argument, that should embarrass any fourth grader.

Still, the arguments presented in the book (or anyplace else for that matter) stand on their own merit.

(Experts on both sides present sophisticated jurisprudential arguments in defense of their positions, but most people look more to congenial outcomes than to consistent principles of law.)

Here Dowsing pulls few punches, presenting well the «children as gift», not burden or right, argument and is very clear on the immorality of separating the unitive and the procreative.

In it I want to do three things: firstly, to overview Roman Catholic positions on the spiritual soul, secondly to mention some of the reasons for the present virtual silence about the soul and, thirdly, to provide the beginning of a positive argument for the human soul.

The arguments against evolution have been so explicitly and thoroughly expounded in the Catholic theology of the last eighty years, that it is not to be expected that later on they will become even more evident, in relation to the Church's awareness of what she believes, than they are now, and so become capable of providing new and certain grounds for rejecting the theory of evolution of a kind that have been declared to be not yet at present available.

Leon R. Kass, Chair of the President's Council on Bioethics, has presented the most developed argument along these lines.

I know that we've discussed this issue at length in the past, so if you've commented on the topic before, consider presenting what you think to be both the strongest AND THE WEAKEST elements of your own argument... in the spirit of the fast.

The aim of Catholic Voices is to assist interested parties in articulating well - founded arguments supporting traditional Catholic teaching and to train participants in presenting the Church's case on contentious issues in the media.

Now it is central to the whole point of David Novak's argument that this entire strategy is founded on a most fundamental error, whose formulation we must cite in full, adding italics to highlight its centrality: «Theologically, the error here is that revelation is essentially reduced to the supreme awareness of an order already present in creation.»

I thought, however, that the entire argument presented by Aquinas on the existence of God began with a premise I can not accept.

In light of the entire argument I have presented so far, I think that it is precisely on the cross where God asks for forgiveness and pleads «guilty.»

The source for both Hartshorne and Weiss's opinions on this point is Charles Peirce, whose essay, «The Doctrine of Necessity Examined,» presents a more dialectical argument than that of either of his students for why people might mistakenly believe in determinism (7: pars.

Since there are many new readers on this blog, and since probably everyone who has been here longer than a year has forgotten the basic argument I am trying to present, I figured I would spend one post summarizing my view and inviting people to go back and read some of what I have written previously only this topic.

In his letter of December 10, 1934 Brightman shares Hartshorne's worry, «that other selves are merely inferred but never given,» and goes on to present his own empiricist colors «I'd like to be able to make sense out of the idea of a literal participation in other selves... whenever I try, I find myself landed in contradiction, in epistemological chaos, and in unfaithfulness to experience...» Brightman's argument is that any «intuition» (for him a synonym for «experience»), «is exclusively a member of me,» but the object of that intuition is «always problematic and distinct from the conscious experience which refers to it.»

Like I said, if you have an argument you wish to present on this blog, I'll be happy to challenge it.

But what I detect in it is the work of someone who was never all that interested in investigating the arguments on either side of the same - sex marriage debate; whose scant interest in it has now been fully exhausted, both intellectually and morally; and whose present conclusions hover in mid-air without anything to support them other than a wistful regret that he has lost a hoedown partner in a gay man who has come fairly unglued over the issue.

You evaluate someone's argument based on the body of facts and information presented, not who they are personally.

When Newman came to write his Essay on the Development of Doctrine, he makes the point that «the absolute need of a spiritual authority is at present the strongest argument in favour of its supply.»

Our objection would be that the Catholic side of the argument in section 3, on marriage and family life, is woefully inadequate, and that the non-Catholic side is presented with unacknowledged quasi-relativist assumptions which are profoundly opposed to Catholic thinking and formation.

There's no argument unless those who believe do not attempt to have their beliefs taught, presented, and acted on as facts.

Just as you have yet to present an argument based on acceptable scientific evidence concerning the afterlife neither have I.

On the other hand, I could make a number of reasonable arguments to demonstrate that belief in your god is unjustified (such as the argument that I've just presented you with).

In order to evangelize for our positions — whether at press conferences, in boardrooms, in sermons, at legislative hearings, on the job, at the coffeehouse, or across the fence — we must learn to present our arguments so that those who hear them have the choice to see them as compelling.

The actual argument is beyond the point, the author has little grasp on the data and presents multiple false opinions as fact.

Well, Tyson can give us specific quotes from one of the most prominent of Muslim scholars denouncing mathematics and lists of astronomical discoveries made before radical religion became entrenched in Islamic culture, while you present ambiguous statements like «history» and «facts» and attacks on his credibility, not his arguments.

Instead of relying on scientific arguments for the rationalization of the Buddhist experience they are at present trying to resort to its own dialectics.»