Sentences with phrase «as evidence for this claim»

And please don't call the Bible evidence — the Bible makes the claims and therefore can not reasonably also be used as evidence for those claims.

'' — the Bible makes the claims and therefore can not reasonably also be used as evidence for those claims.»

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim.

Your article «Low doses of common chemical have science in a quandary» (News, Dec. 26) claims that exposure to low doses of Bisphenol - A (BPA) may lead to «possible widespread health risks,» and mentions a recent scientific review by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) as the evidence for this claim.

But the science behind the blanket's claims is scarce — as STAT found by reviewing the studies the manufacturer cites as evidence for its claims.

Not sure why Jim cited the paper as evidence for his claim as it doesn't appear to address the question.

We should remind ourselves that we're dealing with a serial misrepresenter, and that we're using sentences as evidence for claims.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim.

It's important that you bring an actual, real life scenario as evidence for your claim.

Not exact matches

For example, as evidence of the growth of e-sports, many people use data from different sources to claim that the annual championship of Riot Games's League of Legends is watched by more viewers than the National Basketball Association finals.

Cuomo said there was «no evidence of international terrorism» as terrorist groups like ISIS have not claimed credit for the bomb.

«There is a lot to like about the book; Chapin has done extensive research and relies on both primary and secondary sources as she provides evidence for her claims.»

The Enrollment Program also authorizes a superior court to have jurisdiction over enrollees by allowing it to «appoint a receiver, monitor, conservator, or other designated fiduciary or officer of the court for a defendant or the defendant's assets,» as well as authorizes the Commissioner of Business Oversight to «include in civil actions claims for ancillary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, on behalf of a person injured, as well as attorney's fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to $ 25,000» for up to four years after the purported violation occurred and «refer evidence regarding violations of the bill's provisions to the Attorney General, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, or the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, who would be authorized, with or without this type of a reference, to institute appropriate proceedings.»

I do not, as I have stated, have any love for the religious fundamentalists in this country, but I do not see any evidence that supports your claim.

But the claims of religion which touch upon things which can be observed and tested in the real world can be proven true or untrue as the evidence for or against those things is discovered.

If its claims are true then that is good evidence for accepting it as the Word of God.

If you want to claim God as the reason for everything, you then must back your claim with evidence for your god or you deserve to be called on it.

In chemistry we just have observed evidence, just as in claims for gods existence.

The claim that celibacy has helped cause sexual abuse is a claim that runs utterly contrary to the evidence, and unjustly moves responsibility for despicably evil acts away from the abusers, and onto some environmental condition such as the discipline of celibacy in a priestly life.

So should we take the tendency for certain people to get religious feelings about Apple as evidence for the legitimacy of claims that Steve Jobs is god?

In the pages of the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wonders if a string of failures for the Obama administration counts as mounting evidence not only against his primary claim to rule, executive competence, but also against the undergirding premises of liberal political philosophy.

What if we factor in the evidence for the existence of God, the Messianic claims Jesus made about himself, how his resurrection would act as the vindication of them, and a host of other details?

Then, to claim that the bible wrote that too as evidence for your argument?

There is no solid evidence for this, although there were trading links between Syria and Britain, and another legend, referred to in William Blake's «Jerusalem», claims that Joseph of Arimathea had brought Jesus as a child to the west of England.

Newman goes on to argue that claiming that faith must always proceed works in living the Christian life is «mistaking a following in order of conception for a following in order of time...» In fact, he writes, our works are «the concomitant development and evidence, and instrumental cause, as well as the subsequent result of faith.»

Jonson provides ample evidence in his works for those who wish to claim him as Catholic (some poems), anti-Catholic (satires in the plays), and unreligious.

An atheist will not value an acceptance of something not founded upon empirical evidence as a good reason for an outrageous claim.

However, Whitehead uses the experience of CE as evidenced for an objective claim, so it seems as if he is making an objective claim about it, and hence it could be erroneous, since there could be a difference between «seems» and «is.»

Nicholas of Cusa, Pascal, and Locke all advance the doctrine of internal relations as evidence for the skeptical claim that human knowledge is severely limited and radically incapable of penetrating the fabric of nature.10

I find it baffling that anyone would claim it's good news for the faithful that science has more evidence for what science already accepted as fact for so long.

I can't recommend anything, as this isn't my area, but if you want to have an impact maybe try searching around for some evidence for your claim?

When I say «I see no evidence for any God / gods and the evidence we do have proves a global flood did not occur as the bible claims» when asked by a believer why I don't believe, it might look very similiar to an anti-theist who is attempting to convince you to quit believing in God.

So why do we need faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth if the evidence for this event is as strong as Christian apologists claim?

«Founded by atheism, claimed by atheism, supported by atheism, and exclusively in the interests of atheism, suppressing without mercy every jot of evidence for the divine existence, and so making a positive rational faith in God wholly impossible, the doctrine of evolution may well be set down as not only a foe to theism, but a foe of the most thoroughgoing sort.»

Capital punishment's lack of demonstrated superiority as a deterrent (the evidence for its effectiveness being at best mixed), the capacity of society to protect itself equally well by permanently imprisoning those who are currently being executed (which is possible at limited marginal cost, especially when one takes into account the cost of the extended trial procedures and interminable appeals and reviews which usually accompany capital punishment)-- all these points are important, but their utility is chiefly as rebuttal arguments in response to the empirically weak but emotionally strong claims made on behalf of capital punishment.

You may see it as crazy talk, but you make the claim daily and I ask for evidence — if you had any, you'd present it, but each day it's the same dance.

Men wrote it, and claim a god inspired it, but they do not know that and it just as well COULD have been inspired by satan... just as much evidence for both.

Arguments based on your version of a book compiled from dozens of sources hundreds of years after the events they claim to relate and for many parts of which contradictory evidence is a «plenty (No historical evidence whatsoever of an Exodus, for example plus we now know the Egyptians did not use a slave - based economy for construction as one example.

As per usual, you provide no evidence for your claim that I'm definitely not communicating with my god.

The explanation of this distinctive conception, scholars have suggested, is that Mark, fully convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, could find no clear evidence that he had presented himself as such to the Jewish nation; and the reason for this silence, Mark decided, could only be that Jesus was not yet ready to claim his Messiahship publicly and did not want the fact divulged prematurely.

I and its parallels, and in view also of what we have claimed to be the success of the total contemporary approach to the synoptic tradition in which these variations are accounted for on the assumption that they are due to, and a source of knowledge of, the theology of the evangelist or redactor concerned, we claim that we are entirely justified in challenging Gerhardsson to produce an exegesis of some sets of parallel sayings as evidence for his hypothesis, as we are prepared to do as evidence for ours.

This claim is frequently presented, whether implicitly or explicitly, as a correlative to the idea that Christianity often as personified by Jesus or less frequently by Paul - was «goad» for women, paid them particular attention, or at least offered them opportunities not otherwise available, to caricature, the ideal of «the Feminist Jesus».60 In an admirable and scholarly article Leonard Swidler has marshaled historical evidences to show convincingly that Jesus was a Feminist.61 The politics of such a view is self - evident, for much study of the subject has developed within a context where women were struggling to establish a proper role for themselves within the contemporary church; to this end they have sought an egalitarian past to act as model for present polity.62

Again, and as usual you claim observations to be evidence for your pet theory without establishing a causal relation between the two.

What evidence do you offer to claim that hasnt occurred for those that accept Jesus as Savior?

Barton cites approvingly John Jay's claim that Americans should «select and prefer Christians for their rulers,» and views George Washington's survival at the Battle of the Monongahela as evidence that God was preserving Washington for his later role in the Revolution, which Barton interprets as God's struggle between liberty and tyranny.

Despite any clinical evidence for or against the therapy, the APA denounces such therapy because, «In the current social climate, claiming homosexuality is a mental disorder stems from efforts to discredit the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality.

It is not logical or reasonable to assume without any evidence whatsoever that this «eternal soul» (not making a claim just can not think of a better term for self awareness without time or space constraints) is constrained to our time line or space as it did not originate from there.

As for Rev Parsons, saying god exists is the equivalent of lying when it can't back its claims with substantial evidence... neither it or just spewin» can be trusted on their opinion... if they really believe in this god, then they have sinned and are both destined for their fairy land land of hell.

As shown by the New York Times» own evidence, published for all to see on their website at the beginning of their well planned assault this Easter, the claim concerning what the «Pope -LSB-...] allowed» is false on two counts:

Evidence for claim: @LinCA «The christian god can't exist as it is logically impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent.