Sentences with phrase «argument would seem»

The longer the debate will be, the more valid that argument would seem.

The logic of Johnson's argument would seem to be that, since one or more major accommodations of the gospel were accepted in the past, the accommodation that feminists propose must also be accepted.

So far as I am aware, process thinkers have not critiqued the traditional Islamic doctrines of God; but the process arguments would seem to be far more devastating when applied, say; to the «occasionalism» of al - Ashari's doctrine of divine power than to the Augustinian or Thomistic notions of God.

Not exact matches

Now, you may or may not find that to be a persuasive argument about the state of income inequality in Canada — as our own Chris MacDonald has pointed out, determining the fairness of CEO pay is more complicated than it seems.

So, this argument that affirmative action somehow is causing it doesn't really seem to have much of a logical basis.

It might be possible to make a reasonable argument that Mr. Trudeau has done nothing wrong — the same ethics commissioner to whom the Harper government deferred on the matter of Nigel Wright's cheque seems to have cleared Mr. Trudeau to make the speeches he made between 2008 and 2012.

But it's not even 9 am yet and I've already bumped into a number of Fed - related arguments that seem worth weighing in... Read more

While her arguments are plausible and the issue important enough to consider seriously, her critique of UNICEF seems strongly influenced by her own personal experience, and UNICEF does have good reason (given the number of not - so - legitimate international adoptions) to want to regulate international adoptions in the interest of children.

The key thrust of Jarret's arguments in various articles on this topic seem to be «people who have much more experience in this than Musk have already proved this doesn't work.»

And all along, investors bought the argument: Even if the number of pay TV subscribers had stalled, the big media companies seemed as though they were going to wring more money out of the customers they did have — and could sell more stuff to Web TV entrants like Netflix and Amazon.

On one hand, Norway's past eight years, in which it had both a trade account surplus and a governmental fiscal surplus would seem to support his argument; yet there are too many other examples which do not confirm this theory.

Prentice seemed to get caught up in the argument and in the process may have lost sight of the fact that his goal was to keep the PCs and undecided members of the audience with him, rather than to clobber Notley.

I find it fascinating that everyone is fixated on the «3rd world country» term and nobody seems have any objection to the rest of that statement... that is other than to say that I am delusional... no hard, factual arguments against it.

Much of your argument such as I've seen, for your sky fairy (and I really think that is an appropriate term for your obviously fictional deity with all the self - contradictory tales about it in the bible), really seems to consist of a combination of willed ignorance and arguments from ignorance.

Moreover, Cruz's supposedly killer argument, that once the subsidies begin in January the political possibility of repeal is likely lost, because you know, no entitlement has ever been taken - back, just seems extremely weak — it has a freshman - debate - practice aroma.

A bigger problem is that cynical pols like Romney (and Michelle Bachmann on this issue) end up feeding into this self - defeating narrative because it seems easier than making a real argument about health care or taxes or what have you.

She seems content to rehash John Bosewell's long since refuted arguments and pretend as if Christian scholarship has not already handled these bad arguments.

All you seem to have is a dislike for my argument and feel you need to put me down.

But is does seem like this policy is being advocated by some reasonable - sounding people with plausible arguments and it does seem to have a respectable intellectual roots.

I've heard lots of arguments about why everything Matt Walsh publishes should be deleted, recycled, and then the hard drives they were deleted from melted down into slag and thrown into an active volcano to ensure that none of his radical ultra-conservative garbage is ever recovered, but all of them seem to center around the idea that because he is condescending, he is wrong.

@Liz — It seems like the argument you are making is valid but only from the perspective of either creating a high risk of complication / retardation which science has proven when children are born to closely related people, and the «Ick» factor of not wanting to imagine two siblings getting it on.

But they seem not to have given us persuasive public arguments on reproduction and parenthood, all the creation topics.

Out of all the postings on this site today, I found «Derp's «post the most fascinating and informative, as well as deeply revealing.Even after boasting of what seems to be a practically perfect live by any measure, he informs us that he takes pleasure in mocking and ridiculing those of faith who are presumably his opposite; I can only wonder if, given all his supposed accomplishments, he is smart enough to realize how deeply revealing of his true character his remarks are.As a believer, I rarely engage in arguments with my atheist friends, and like to think I wouldn't lower myself to the level of juvenile name - calling and personal attacks against whatever my atheist friends hold dear.Most of the time we simply agree to disagree; when they hold forth with misinformation or ignorance on their assumed «knowledge «of my faith, I try to gently correct them; I certainly don't allow any disagreements we have to devolve into hateful insults and name - calling.

3.15 showing brahman as both stationary and moving would seem to support Radhakrishnan's argument.

As atheist writer Douglas Murray recently noted, after sitting alongside Dawkins in a debate: «The more I listened to Dawkins and his colleagues, the more the nature of what has gone wrong with their argument seemed clear.

This is a weak argument, but interestingly, since I wrote the article, is seems that nearly every book I read has ideas which parallel the content of my research.

If any christians had a decent argument, they'd focus on it, instead of on the imagined «hate» and «spite» they seem to see in everyone who doesn't agree with them — but not in god, who demonstrates it in every book of his «word» if you but only read without the bias of indoctrination / brainwashing.

Having read Ponsor's ruling and Lively's appeal, I am pained to say that Lively seems to have the better of the argument.

If you want to have a serious debate, you'll have to start engaging with the facts and arguments that have been presented rather than merely ignoring them and restating the same old arguments that you seem so desperate to believe.

To many, it has seemed an unedifying sight that those who defend theism on cosmological grounds have time after time given up their arguments only to come back with new ones which in turn are later surrendered.

If two millennia of argument have not finished off Gnosticism, that most protean of heresies, it seems unlikely that contemporary arguments, no matter how persuasive orthodox believers may find them, will do the job with the unconverted, the skeptical, or the hostile.

There have been many criticisms of the details of Bousset's argument; the main thesis seems to me to be established.

The argument of this sermon was open to criticism on the ground that the preacher seemed to take for granted a highly debatable view of the redemptive value of human suffering; yet he was calling attention to something very important, namely, that if we quote Baxter's words as Professor Lampe has done, we must not forget that the scope of Christ's suffering is limited.

(Blanshard virtually ignores most of what seem to me the chief arguments against determinism, but gives a fine account of the arguments which have often been thought to support it.)

So has it seemed to many other people: almost every mathematical logician I have put the matter to has confessed similar thoughts, but has felt reluctant to commit himself definitely until he could see the whole argument set out, with all objections fully stated and properly met.

It may indeed seem that what I have done so far is to offer a tentative argument against the claims of an exemplarist interpretation of Christ's work, namely, that if he is offered us as an exemplar his experience is in crucial respects too relative and limited to offer a wholly significant guide - post to men and women in all the circumstances of their lives.

For it would seem that the arguments from order and from contingency either rest on a misunderstanding of what an explanation is, or more likely, on an arbitrary supposition that man's experience is intelligible precisely in this way.

It would seem that the old Hindu argument» still requires an answer.

There seem to be arguments from both sides, but I haven't read enough of them.

In retrospect, the arguments I have been advancing in favor of my interpretation of the principle of process seem straightforwardly simple and, I hope, convincing.

Leaving aside lame arguments as to whether it provides some type of support for the Abrahamic religions, the author seems to have missed the entire point of the new discovery.

It seems not to have occurred to Freud that his wish to live without illusions may have been so powerful as to have clouded his reason and infected his arguments about wish fulfillment.

now YOU are seeming to imply that man does not make mistakes... your argument is rather silly... MAN have differences of opinions and man MAKEs mistakes..

in terms of your argument here: you seem unaware that naturalism * equally * has metaphysical presuppositions (located OUTSIDE science — as you have put it).

But it seems more likely that the «traditional family» argument is just a smokescreen to get more people to stand aside who otherwise wouldn't while he kills the people he hates.

I never said that atheist have the better argument, sorry if that was what it seemed, but that was never my intent And no, I don't want you to believe that might makes right, I've not really shared my view.

Seems like there would be no argument.

I took the first step 26 years ago, and it would seem that the issue of abortion kind of falls into the arguments I am hearing related to Dominic's thoughts.

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 substance.

I've added, very quickly, a couple of my own comments: It seems the one main lacuna in his argument is that he has no conception of heresy.