Sentences with phrase «basic argument of»

is an issue of detail that is not relevant to the basic argument of M.

It seems to me this is the basic argument of the high CO2 sensitivity crowd.

As a result, neither of these points refutes the basic argument of this paper, which is that spending on education is higher when the middle class is stronger.

«Let me make the basic argument of fairness he seems to miss,» Cameron adds.

This basic argument of some of my previous posts is that God couldn't have stopped the flood in the first place.

The basic argument of Bailey is that 1 Corinthians is composed of five major Prophetic Rhetorical Homilies, all of which use numerous types and formats of these Middle - Eastern thought structures.

The basic argument of the book is that most of what the church does today was borrowed from paganism.

This is the basic argument of his book.

Ellul also previously expressed some of the basic arguments of The Humiliation of the Word in «Notes innocentes sur la «question herméneutique»» (published in L'Evangile hier et anjourd» hui: Mélanges offerts au Professeur Franz J. Leenhardt [Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1968]-RRB-.

Not exact matches

The basic premise of the argument Keynes had with his peers is the same as the one today.

Gordon's basic argument is essentially that lawyers play too important a role in modern society for them to think of themselves as solely beholden to their clients.

The eight - justice court is hearing arguments Monday in two cases that deal with the same basic issue of whether race played too large a role in the drawing of electoral districts, to the detriment of African - Americans.

The solution then is inflation, in our arguments over the last week Nick and I disagreed about the various transmission mechanisms from monetary policy to the real economy (we also argued over the basic causes of the trap, the last sentance was my version).

The key to making this argument isn't any kind of investigation into the Trump Foundation, it's the basics of Trump's business ownership.

Let's get back to basics and judge our pundits based on the merits of their arguments, not their directional affiliations.

[13] Once again, it seems appropriate to recount the basic normative argument in favor of director primacy for the benefit of new readers, while keeping the statement as brief as possible and incorporating by reference works in which the argument is laid out in detail.

The basic argument behind the memo is this: Clinton's presidential campaign funded the creation of the Steele dossier, and the FBI used the dossier as the flimsy basis for a warrant to surveil Page.

Because Dreher's account of the historical relationship between realism and nominalism is basic to his subsequent argument, it can not be dismissed as a side issue.

William Paley's Divine Watchmaker argument is a flawed argument that contains instances of the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy and other basic fallacies.

He was unsatisfied with the reception to Paul VI's Humanae Vitae of 1968, and unsatisfied, too, with the state of the argument in the Church, thinking that it did not go as far as it could in answering certain basic puzzlements that humans have about themselves.

None of these arguments give the Israelis the right to continuously violate the basic human rights of the Palestinian people who live in abject poverty.

= > The basic argument follows the typical understanding of boundaries to time and space.

If you have even that very basic simple fact wrong, it indicates you are basing a portion of your argument on false information.

In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: «If many believe so, it is so.»

His basic argument seems to be that although the people from Adam to Moses did not sin by breaking a command (as Adam did), they still suffered the consequences of sin (death).

Since then, this conception of metaphysics has given way to one of metaphysics as the study of most basic or general presuppositions, and of the metaphysical argument as hypothetical in the manner of a scientific theory, but on a level of higher generality.

So, their arguments against Christianity are almost always a large collection of straw arguments and very basic misreadings of texts, because they are taken in isolation.

So long as the existence of any finite entity is acknowledged, the basic argument follows from its insufficiency to a self - sufficient existent.

But although the argument is elaborate, Thomas's basic thesis can be stated succinctly: the soul is by nature incorruptible since it is both subsistent and its operation is ultimately independent of the body.

While I can not develop the argument here, I believe it makes sense to understand unilateral power as a special case arising out of the more basic relational power, much as determinism arises statistically out of subatomic indeterminancy.

Which is exactly why every time you post the garbage you learned in those classes, it gets destroyed, showing the flaws in the basic premises, destroying the integrity of the argument.

Basic to this argument is the position that what by its nature is related to something else, depends on it, since without it this being can neither be nor be thought of.

To arrive at the God of Christian Theism, other evidences can be offered in addition to this more basic one (e.g. aspects of natural theology, historical arguments for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, alleged special revelation, etc.).

There are three basic issues here: the significance of Hartshorne's work on the ontological argument, the justifiability of rejecting metaphysical claims in principle because they «impoverish» experience, and the correctness of holding that Hartshorne's position does so impoverish experience.

This interpretation of the ontological argument indicates a basic agreement in the significance of the arguments in Anselm's Monologion and in Aquinas» five ways with that of Anselm's Proslogion, for all of them can be interpreted as defining characteristics of the ground of ultimately satisfying metaphysical understanding.

It seems that maybe what John, Peter, James, and Jude did was go to a professionally trained letter writer and provided them with the basic ideas, arguments, and points they wanted to make in their letter, and then let the professional letter writer compose the letter according to the letter writing standards of that day.

Your arguments, like many other I read against scientific hypothoses, is simplistic, lacking in basic logic, and displaying a vast lack of educational understanding.

Sherburne explicitly discusses regional inclusion and noncontiguous efficacy as adjuncts of his basic argument that God can not be the ground of the givenness of the past.

Rather than drawing attention to the distinctiveness of the Judeo - Christian tradition, liberal civil religion is much more likely to include arguments about basic human rights and common human problems.

Actually, most of the arguments are voiced against the Abrahamic god myth that is the basis of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, although the basic logic could be applied to any religion.

At the risk of oversimplification, then, it seems necessary to attempt a brief summary of the basic arguments we must grasp before we can understand critically the relations between sacredness and everyday life.

The second basic component of Berger's argument is that something called «everyday reality» is paramount.

And at the end of the day, MANY of the atheist arguments explaining existence CAN be deconstructed into a basic assertion of «ink + paper = dictionary».

His own pet proof of «why there almost certainly is no God» (a proof in which he takes much evident pride) is one that a usually mild - spoken friend of mine (a friend who has devoted too much of his life to teaching undergraduates the basic rules of logic and the elementary language of philosophy) has described as «possibly the single most incompetent logical argument ever made for or against anything in the whole history of the human race.»

Last, and paradoxically, the word «inerrancy» undermines its apologetic intent by reflecting a defensiveness toward Scripture that is out of keeping with the gospel's own boldly proclaimed confidence.52 For these reasons, Hubbard has become increasingly uncomfortable with the use of the term «inerrancy» to describe his basic commitment to Scripture's infallibility, though he has no basic argument with those like Pinnock who use the term as qualified and understood Biblically.

«Religious arguments,» he writes, «must never trump the protection of children's basic human rights.

While she derides the form it takes among the pick - up artists, her basic argument seems to be that evolutionary psychology explains the behavior of those involved in the culture, even if it doesn't work.

We can not, through arguments, plumb the entire meaning of the paradox, since these basic truths in Scripture are also a mystery, but we can and should continue to help one another toward a better understanding.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist's opinion summarizes the basic attitude underlying the theologically germane aspects of the government's argument and the court's response.

Here is the curious thing: As I interact with people of other religions, and through the course of conversation find out why they hold their beliefs, I find that nearly all people of all religions have these same four basic arguments for why their beliefs are true.