Sentences with phrase «arguments against the truth»

Intelligent people are those that can take in the doubt abd recognize the falacious arguments against the truth.

Not exact matches

They already know the truth, and so view their job as making a case against any arguments from skeptics and doubters.

I see the argument against the term «atheist,» but I don't like «non-believer,» either, because I believe in lots of things — science, truth, empathy, the power of creativity, etc — just not in anyone's god (s).

Assuming the truth of contingency in human affairs, McCabe marshaled two primary arguments against divine foreknowledge.

Does not Peirce's argument for the improbability of an exact zero of a property found in highly variable degrees, and in highly variable extents of space, hold against the exact truth of Euclidian geometry?

He can not distinguish questions regarding the existence of the universe from questions regarding its physical origin; he does not grasp how assertions regarding the absolute must logically differ from assertions regarding contingent beings; he does not know the differences between truths of reason and empirical facts; he has no concept of ontology, in contradistinction to, say, physics or evolutionary biology; he does not understand how assertions regarding transcendental perfections differ from assertions regarding maximum magnitude; he clumsily imagines that the idea of God is susceptible to the same argument from infinite regress traditionally advanced against materialism; he does not understand what the metaphysical concept of simplicity entails; and on and on.

Though it is not quite true that Gustafson and other liberals «never enter into argument against Barth,» there is a pronounced tendency in liberal theology to dismiss Barth's idea of truth as the self - authenticating word of God.

There are several arguments that can be advanced against this position: first, that there is no need to adapt or interpret the Bible this way because this «modern common sense» is quite uncommon; second, that the current popularity of a belief or point of view is no guarantee of its truth, so the Bible ought not to be adapted to suit the understanding of a particular time; third, that the Bible can not be adapted to this common sense, because this common sense excludes God; and fourth, that if our common sense disagrees with the Bible, then we must change our common sense after all, because the Bible is true.

The argument can not be won except against the background of a complete and cogent apologetic for the existence of God, the spirituality of man, the necessity of revelation, the literal truth of the Incarnation, and the nature of the Church that flows from this fact of Divine teaching and ministry through the ages.

But those who fall into ignorance or denial of one or the other of these truths will find our arguments against abortion to be absurd.

All that would be claimed is this: If we engage in the practice of theological education, then we commit ourselves to the view that it is possible to make truth claims about God and to weigh arguments in favor of and against them, even if they never are and perhaps never can be «knock down» decisive arguments.

Ex-home secretary David Blunkett has admitted there is a constitutional «argument» against him getting involved, but says «the honest truth is I didn't mind».

«When I was doing those TV debates it sometimes felt like I was up against a quasi-religious rock concert, where no matter what truth you told it didn't really matter in a post-truth type of argument in the politics.»

We have read a news story with a screaming headline: ACEP AGAINST SECOND KARPOWER published by the media, and after digesting the arguments put forward by the think - tank and noticing the half - truths therein, we firmly conclude, that ACEP is engaging in politics to score cheap political points for the NPP flagbearer, in this election.

See, the truth is, the diet industry's arguments against hunger and fasting only apply to long - term calorie restriction.

The truth is, analysts employ variety of strategies for stock valuation, and arguments can be made for or against the use of nearly any approach.

I'm not going to argue against it as there is plenty of truth to the statement, as there is with most arguments against games.

I think Michael Criton has made the best argument and comparison to commonly accepted «truths» of the scientific community, that were later found to be incorrect; most recently the stomach ulcer causes actually discovered against the entire gastroenterological medical community.

I find allegations of dishonesty as a substitute for cogent arguments against climate research findings to be not only at odds with my personal experience of scientists» affection for truth but also extremely annoying.

As an astrophysicist who specializes in solar activity, how do you react to the arguments against the universality and truth of the Second Law?

... that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

And there's truth in the for and against sides of the argument.

In order more fully to illustrate the mischief of denying a hearing to opinions because we, in our own judgment, have condemned them, it will be desirable to fix down the discussion to a concrete case; and I choose, by preference, the cases which are least favorable to me — in which the argument against freedom of opinion, both on the score of truth and on that of utility, is considered the strongest.

The success he has achieved in this almost single handed fight against the massive CAGW propaganda machine is a tribute to his skill and intelligence, aided of course by the truth he has behind his arguments.

I find it interesting that Monbiot has utter faith in research financed by Big Oil, though of course no sane human being would believe that the source of funding for research is a valid argument for or against the truth of the findings, would they?