Sentences with phrase «at least an argument for»

Not exact matches

Add to that the fact that proper functioning of corporate governance (and hence of capital markets) is clearly a matter of public concern, and you have at least the beginnings of a public - interest argument for interference in what would otherwise be a private matter.

In other words, people for whom there is at least some social argument that working less is a good thing.

Blanchard's argument runs contrary to decades of monetary policy, but any idea to help prepare for future collapses is at least worth discussing, says Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets.

There is a credible argument that tariffs should be rejected even for these purposes, but these two purposes at least offer a coherent rationale for maintaining a tariff.

A bit of site googling demonstrates that «Live4Him» has copied and pasted the same «arguments» for his crazy god beliefs at least 5 times in the past few months.

For the record I am dating a Christian and though we may disagree she at least comes to the table with a better argument than this.

For there are a number of ways in which the force of the argument can be at least temporarily neutralized.

Since as Christians we are obliged by the gospel to hope for the salvation of every individual, we must suppose, this argument says, that the salvation of all people is at least possible.

In the language of mathematical logic, at least as it was current in Whitehead's day, a proposition is produced from a propositional function by substituting a name as value for the variable in the argument position of the function, or by quantifying over a range of such values.

This line of apologist argument is at best a draw, but perhaps doesn't even rise to that level because at least we have physical evidence for the singularity.

Our task is to work hard, master the arguments (scientific, ethical, philosophical, social), understand the history of how we arrived here, defy the temptation to give up through boredom, build a coherent movement of defiance, and thereby prepare if not ourselves, then at least the next generation, for the moment when the revolution collapses under the weight of its own delusions and contradictions.

has about it something of a demand for a pedigree, which might at least lend some credibility to the claims Christ makes for himself; for want of which, Pilate can do little other than pronounce his truth: «I have power to crucify thee» (which, to be fair, would under most circumstances be an incontrovertible argument).

that is, «The world is thus [italics mine] faced by the paradox that, at least in its highest actualities, it craves for novelty and yet is haunted by terror at the loss of the past, with its familiarities and its loved ones,» refers, because of the use of the word thus, to a previous argument that provides the grounds on which Whitehead bases his assertion that the world requires both novelty and order.

If his thesis is built around his interpretation of that verse then it is going to be difficult to sell the idea unless he makes a convincing argument against John 16:32 and Psalm 22, for me at least.

Economic study tells us for every dollar invested in a local community, it generates at least 5 dollars in spending — which is the biggest argument against the way Tribal casinos are set up where the most money leaves the local community permanently.

If you're going to quote the law for your argument at least try to be somewhat knowledgeable in it.

If you subscribe to the above, then I feel like if you're a non-theist, that you are responsible for at least an honest, humble pursuit into theism and their arguments.

At least there is an argument on each side for other controversial issues.

The long struggle over whether a conversion experience was essential for church membership was an argument over whether the unconverted could share in the covenant relation with the converted and attain at least some of the worldly and spiritual advantages of church membership.

For example, the idea of a heavenly contract gained cogency among Puritan clerics at least in part because it was used to support specific arguments against radical heretics» ideas about adult baptism and free will.

On reflection we can see that the above argument for the internal relatedness of God as cognitive subject presupposes that there are alternative possibilities for God, at least with respect to what creatures, or what states of creatures, He has as objects of knowledge.

I find it highly ironic that you mock organized religion for being thoughtless, yet you seem (at least) equally unaware of how shallow Marshall Brain's arguments are.

There are reasonable arguments for both, but one ought at least to acknowledge that they are two arguments, not one.

The preceding discussion shows, I think, that Hartshorne has no convincing arguments for the necessary existence of at least some universe.

But for me the greatest difference between Thomas Aquinas» Cosmological Argument and any and all arguments from design comes from what all the advocates of design admit: that the candidate for the Intelligent Designer could be, at least theoretically, just about any supra «human intelligent manipulator of complex artifacts, from outer «space aliens to Al Gore's Mama Gaia.

In this paper I shall (1) briefly set forth this argument; (2) show that the argument, if it is valid, is valid only for a Hartshornean God; (3) argue that, since Hartshorne's God does require that at least something (anything will do) contingent exists, the «new» ontological argument fails even for Hartshorne's God, because it is logically possible that there should be nothing at all, total non-being.

Hartshorne evidently recognizes the force of this reasoning because the other line of argument by which he at least appears to support his claim for a distinct class of theological analogies is to appeal to just such a direct experience of God.

Not only is this disassociation apparent but it seems to leave theology particularly exposed; for while the metaphysician may be criticised for paying insufficient attention to empirical enquiry, and the natural scientist too little to abstract argument about ultimate principles, at least both appear to be directed towards describing the structure of things: metaphysical and natural, respectively.

In fact, there is a strong moral argument that convincingly (to me, at least) describes why it is immoral to «deaden your acuteness» to the intuitions that are becoming emotional stumbling blocks to belief, that these emotions are there for a reason, and they should not be deadened — especially if God doesn't exist.

This judgment doesn't rest, at least for me, on the novelty of Locke's particular arguments.

In light of what is actually happening and what is most likely to increase as a result of NAFTA, the political and humanitarian arguments for free trade, at least in regard to relations with Mexico, are weak.

well, if you're talking about them, they can't be all that useless there's is at least 1 use for them, which is for you to talk about them so, there goes your argument cheers

It is not my intention to defend everything the encyclical tradition has had to say about sex and marriage but rather to point out that that tradition, especially in Arcanum Divinae, at least had the argument in the right ball park — namely, that what one says about sex is correlative to one's understanding of the nature of the family and what its function is for the preservation of good societies.

But thanks at least for having rational arguments, unlike some other mentally challenged individuals on this forum.

Therefore, I feel I must overcome my resistance and resentment, must dismiss the feeling of engaging in an unwilling exercise in apologetics, and try earnestly, if not to supply straight and simple answers, at least to clarify and line up some of the evasive arguments that I have harbored for a long time, and to articulate them as well as I can.

I hear some version of this argument at least once a week — most recently from Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention — and I believe it is common enough (and reasonable enough) to warrant a brief response here, extended with nothing but grace, peace, and goodwill for my brothers and sisters in Christ with whom I respectfully disagree.

Sure - why not (for the sake of argument, at least)?

In my paper on Anselm, an attempt was made, not only to spell out the full vocabulary needed for stating the — or at least a — ontological argument, but also to list in full the premises needed.

He reflects carefully on the basic dilemma» that defending democracy and its rights and liberties may require an abrogation of at least some of those rights and liberties, at least for some persons and for a limited time» and he explicitly sets out to make a moral argument rather than the legal and political - theory arguments favored among critics of the war on terror.

The ACCC accepts public benefit arguments, at least for the initial phase of the program.

Ligue 1 is at least as strong as the Portuguese league (I say more competitive but for the sake of argument lets just put equal).

I mean this site / thread probably isn't the place (understatement) but I have delved into this argument more thn the averge joe, and I guarantee someone taking the opposing position in a debate against me on this subject is going to have their hands full with the amount of evidence I could put forth on them for the supposition that an intelligent enity at the very least kick started this thing off.

Carter having come in for a visit means there's at least some interest and you made good arguments for bringing him here.

JW not for the first time I applaud you with the article you have posted.For all you AKB, s you should note the objectiveness and argument of what JW has said and the rationale he uses to at least understand and consider other fans views, to which of course you are entitled.Me I honestly believe you are Deluded, Outdated and WRONG.Wenger would have had respect if he had gone when he KNEW it was all coming apart.This is not recent this is 7 - 8 seasons ago.But I do sympathise how difficult it must be dragging yourself through these tough tough times on # 9miilion f *** ing a year.All you AKB, s really do need to wake up to the reality of the position we are in and who is responsible for us being there.Who are you going to worship when he finally goes or are you going with him.Pathetic to even try to respond to opinion that is proved by where we are as a club.JW — WE SALUTE YOU

As for Jones, he honestly might be a Hall of Famer, anyway: There's a pretty easy argument to make that he's better than Jim Rice or at least as good as Andre Dawson, if you're looking for recent comparables.

But we'll pretend the first deal didn't have an opt - out for the sake of argument, which means Weaver left at least $ 59 million on the table (that's the $ 62 million difference between the two contracts, less the $ 3 million he's earning from the Padres this year.)

That's some depth and the best part is you could make a solid argument for at least six of them being in the starting XI (to my mind, Bellerin, Gibbs, Arteta, Rocisky, Walcott and soon Gabriel)

Make a compelling argument for both Özil & Ox at least to renew.

If there were no other way for the industry to work, if there were just no possible way for a business to at least pay these players a living wage while they're in this pyramid, I guess I would at least listen to an argument that this has to continue.

Yeah of course - LEICESTER CITY are hundreds of millions in debt.If they won the league with an inferior set of players ans a fraction of our finances why is wrong to expect us to at least be able to compete.Trust me those Dustbin Lids up the road have a ground to pay for so wait and see how long those English Luvvies you seem to adore either hang around or are sold.You are putting forward a ridiculous argument.