Sentences with phrase «arguments are presented for»

Not exact matches

Writers and commentators present entirely logical arguments for why a tax or a regulation aimed at levelling the playing field between regular homebuyers and the world's ultra-rich would be an entirely reasonable response to what clearly is an unusual situation.

«Any argument they make for keeping that in would result in the same kinds of legal challenges presented by Section 3 (c), which poses the question of, «Why have people from these countries been deemed more dangerous than others?»»

Unless the argument is that interest rates and inflation are likely to remain low for the indefinite future, it's absurd to argue that present levels of inflation and interest rates are relevant to setting the valuations of stocks.

I think mutual funds with load are in its way to extinction, but there are many of them still out there and there are many astute commission - based advisors who will present persuasive arguments for you to buy them.

Taken together, we believe these factors present a compelling argument why investors should exit all of the electronic gold products specified at the beginning of this article, and convert the proceeds into physical gold and / or non-Deep State - controlled equities of companies in which they have full confidence that managements are working for them, not the bullion banks.

As one private equity investor points out, protecting under - performing sectors might have been wise in deflationary times (to keep unemployment from ballooning) though as reflation returns the need for productivity to restrain costs could present an argument for reform in the worst - performing sectors.

«Leading academics, the former Children's Commisioner for Wales, the present Children's Commissioner for Wales, and psychiatrists are all saying that it's totally unacceptable for us to have the argument that it's reasonable to hit a child.

The analysis of these texts will be much shorter than the analysis of the flood in Genesis 6 — 8 because explaining all the texts in detail would simply mean that many of the same arguments and ideas presented as an explanation for one text would simply be repeated in an explanation for a different text.

In other words, Griffin's argument is that process theology presents a much more plausible explanation for natural evil than can classical theism.

When this is done, no argument is needed against the real presence of a past figure, for a past figure by definition is not the present subjectivity, is not contemporary, and is precisely one no longer subject to being presented through the senses.7 The presence of a past figure can be made intelligible and justified only by a quite different notion of presence specifically appropriate to the relation of the past to the present.

This forms the basis for the argument for the soul, which was well presented by Kevin Douglas in the January issue of this magazine.

The evidence for it is less clearly found in Process and Reality than in Religion in the Making, yet it seems to be present in the philosophy of Whitehead in such a way that this third argument is really more fundamental than the two just summarized.

The rational arguments for theism were never stronger than they are today and never better presented.

However, the Roman Catholic module exam questions almost invariably allow the Catholic view to be stated; therefore it is important to teach a robust apologetic for the Catholic world view, while also critically presenting the opposing arguments of contemporary society and liberal Christianity.

The singular and plural openings to the creed have both been used throughout the history of Christian worship, and arguments can be presented for both.

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...

An honest apologetic that presents rational arguments for a particular religious world view is less likely to indoctrinate then a superficially neutral presentation that contains hidden assumptions and bias.

Space doesn't allow for the multiplicity of arguments that could be presented for belief in God, but if a sceptic were to ask me to sum up a few, I would offer the following three reasons.

your role now as atheist, is to be the opposing argumenter for the modern day change process or evolution of the present religion from monotheism which you have shown in your arguments to be flawed so that the future faithfuls will shift to the ultra modern faith called PANTHROTHEISM - the synthesis of theistic monotheism vs.humanistic atheism.I suggest to you to be more aggressive and conscise in your arguments, God needs you

These are sayings for the authenticity of which it is possible to offer strong arguments, and they present the fundamental emphases of the teaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom.

No argument could possibly prove that this gap exists because all such demonstrations are only helps for man to come to reflective consciousness of what is intuitively present within man's consciousness.

And a convincing argument can be made that, for serious Christians and Jews, a truly adequate education is education in the fullness of truth presented as the truth.

I just signed up for an account so I could say that this piece presented prehaps the worst argument I've ever read, and that's saying a lot.

But this is not the place to present arguments for pan-experientialism (Griffin).

There never was a time in History that atheists exist, only in this present stage of our intellectual developement that they deny His exisrence, but it can be easily explained that they are just part of the dialectical process of having to have two opposing arguments or forces to arrive to the truth, The opposing forces today are the theists or religious believers of all religions and the other are the atheists who denies religion, The reslultant truth in the future will be Panthrotheism, the belief that we are all one with the whole universe with God, and that we Had all to unite to prepare for human survival that will subject us humans in the future.Aided by the the enlightend consevationist, environmentalists, humanists and all of the concerned activists, we will develop a kind of universal harmony and awareness that we are all guided towards love and concern for all of our specie.The great concern of the whole conscious and caring world to the natural disaster in the Phillipines,, the most theist country now is a positive sign towards this religious direction.Panthrotheism means we will be One with God.

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

Berger is a skilled theorist who knows how to present a compelling example but also how to provide the necessary caveats and qualifications for his arguments.

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.

My second argument is that even if by some measures vast growth does reduce the percentage of the world's population that is desperately poor, present policies will destroy the natural basis for our life together long before they resolve the problem of poverty.

derp, I'm wondering if you have read the book by Dr. Stephen Myers called «Signature in the Cell» which argues that specifically encoded DNA strands store information in a precise and logical manner which provides some evidence that an argument for intelligent design is present?

Once again, people believe what they believe, and if somebody can present a reasonable argument for his / her stance to somebody who's willing to listen, that's great.

The point of our argument is that neither the settled past nor the relatively indeterminate present can explain the possibility of a new occasion, for the determinate can no more decide or act than can the determinable.

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.

For the present, my argument is simply that the talk about «immortality of the soul» has served to provide for a great many Christian people what they wrongly took to be the right and proper Christian way of escaping the stark reality of total deaFor the present, my argument is simply that the talk about «immortality of the soul» has served to provide for a great many Christian people what they wrongly took to be the right and proper Christian way of escaping the stark reality of total deafor a great many Christian people what they wrongly took to be the right and proper Christian way of escaping the stark reality of total death.

Even if, however, all the contextual and exegetical material presented above is wrong, and this verse does in fact teach that God ordained these particular Gentiles to receive eternal life (which the arguments above show He did not), this verse is still not a good proof - text for the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election.

While Matthew is essentially just presenting the same arguments various biblical scholars have been making for decades, he summarized the position so well, it's worth sharing for discussion.

Meanwhile let me say that I hope that the present volume may be followed by another, if I am spared to write it, in which not only Professor Royce's arguments, but others for monistic absolutism shall be considered with all the technical fullness which their great importance calls for.

Cobb's is an argument for how we might understand God to be present within us without displacing any aspect of our humanity or freedom and independence as self - determining subjects.

[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».

Though it is entirely legitimate for a scientist, or anyone else, to present philosophical or theological arguments against naturalistic evolution, it can not properly be claimed that such arguments are themselves scientific ones.

Furthermore, even the identification of the putative content of experience proves to be normed by whatever hermeneutical analysis is employed, for one can only imagine, much less recognize as present, what one can come to identify somehow.16 Finally, some hermeneutical analysis is also presupposed by and, therefore, normative of any argument from experience, whether of the individual or the communal type, since it is only experience as interpretable in terms of some description or other to which one can ever appeal either for the mutual corroboration of such descriptions or for their illustration of a theistic interpretation.

He has stated elsewhere, for example, that the fact that evil presents no serious logical or probabilistic argument against God's existence or goodness will be cold and abstract comfort to a person who is faced with «the shocking concreteness of a particularly appalling exemplification of evil» (AP 35 - 36).

Pell presented the components of what we believe is a convincing argument for the existence of God, without quite connecting them together.

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.»

Being present for so many conversations has gradually given me the tools to sift arguments, sort the wheat from the chaff, consider the weaknesses in other worldviews and determine what seem to be the most significant arguments in support of Christianity.

I have thus far presented arguments for concluding that God is a society, and I have indicated how this view affects the process conception of the nature of God's purpose and freedom.

Thus the question before us is whether the premises of the present argument for the deficiency of Premise X are true.

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.

I have not had to appeal to that oldest and best argument for the institution of academic tenure, the unqualified freedom of a scholar to move as his or her research and thinking lead, without being bound by past assumptions or present colleagues.

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.»