Sentences with phrase «circular argument because»
Not convincing» which is funny circular argument because you state that everyone of that age «average education level of individuals is higher now than in the dark ages» so by your standard nothing of that age can be verified?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/ Not exact matches
You keep saying that, but all I've seen are versions of the circular argument that your god is real because it says so in the bible, and that the bible is real because it is the word of your god.
It's a circular argument with no real beginning or ending... «I am great»... «Why»... «Because I said so.»
Well, FAITH, there's the problem... that gibberish in the bible was just made up by «some guy» to keep the peasants behaving in a manner that whomever wrote it thought was a good way to behave... some of those guys were wise, yes, and there are benefits to following some of the «guidelines» set forth in the Bible... but it's a circular argument to use the Bible as a reason to have faith, because you have to first BELIEVE in the deity, THEN believe that the deity inspired the writings, THEN you can take the writings as «truth»... I'm two steps back, not believing in the deity at all (Yay, Atheists!
Every argument presented in support of supernatural belief is circular, because it invariably leads to the protective harbor of faith.
you crap on the atheists and those who question god, but then you answer everything with the simplistic answer that it is all due to god and he exists because he said so... SO IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE PHYSICS AND LOGIC YOU TALK ABOUT THEN YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR OWN MATHEMATICS CALLS OUT YOUR GOD THEORY AS A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT... YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO CONTINUE TO USE YOUR ARGUMENT
[2] The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance...»
To blame the situation on the lack of confidence in him by fellow Labour MPs is a circular argument: they have no confidence because he is useless.
And we have Curry's own circular argument, climate models are not fit for purpose because Big Natual Oscillation is not addressed by the climate models.
Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability.»
From what I can tell their argument is circular: it is irresponsible to give air / blog time to sceptics because there's a strong scientific consensus that says they're wrong.
This is an entirely circular argument, because the models have been built, indeed forced, to match history, with substantial plug figures added like SO2 effects and non-anthropogenic climate trends, effects for which there are no empirical numbers.
It's circular reasoning, and it's the same argument that we heard all last fall as part of the fact - free DOE FERC proposal, which boils down to this: our assets can't compete in the marketplace because they're too expensive, so you (meaning, the ratepayer) should pay us more money to stay online.
Any argument that tries to claim that these situations are somehow different just ends up being circular, i.e. «it's OK if our guys do it because our guys are right.»
This of course leads to a dangerous circular argument: - we know that the models are right because the physics are right, and the physics must be right because the models say that there is no other explanation; there is no other explanation because we know that the physics are right.
But while a scarcity of apps is the platform's most monolithic hurdle, saying apps are the problem with Windows Mobile is a circular argument — there are no apps, because no one uses the phones, because there are no apps.