Sentences with phrase «factual proof of»

Given that believers have been trying to prove the existance of their tribal supernatural beings for thousands of years, and that there is no objective factual proof of same, the probability of there being any god (s) is virtually zero.

Not exact matches

I withdraw from speculating on whether there is such a being until sensible proof for one has been provided, and the religiously inclined have never been able to come up with any even as many of their number insist that their beliefs are factual.

The proof the at least the Bible stories are non factual are basic common knowledge of our world and how it works.

The claim of my nonpacifist colleagues that the system they are using is more socially responsible, more understandable to ordinary people, more culturally accessible to people of other value communities, more able to manage with discrimination the factual data of political decisions, than is my testimony to Jesus» words and work, still has the burden of proof.

You're using a book that is not factual, has no proof other than itself, and was written by men 100's of years after the fact.

So, in summary you don't actually have a proof, or even a single bit of factual, verifiable, objective and independent evidence for your unproven claims.

In the nineteenth century the burden of proof lay upon the scholar who saw theological interpolations in historical sources; in the twentieth century the burden of proof lies upon the scholar who sees objective factual source material in the primitive Church's book of common worship.

OFSTED maintained that instead of a robust challenge through a Complaints Procedure, it relied upon its quality assurance processes which, in London, included three quality assurance reads, two by an HMI including an evidence based review and a review of the factual accuracy check response by the lead inspector, a sign off by a senior HMI and the final sign off by the regional director, before proof reading.

(1) A credit services organization, its salespersons, agents, and representatives, and independent contractors who sell or attempt to sell the services of a credit services organization may not do any of the following: (a) conduct any business regulated by this chapter without first: (i) securing a certificate of registration from the division; and (ii) unless exempted under Section 13 -21-4, posting a bond, letter of credit, or certificate of deposit with the division in the amount of $ 100,000; (b) make a false statement, or fail to state a material fact, in connection with an application for registration with the division; (c) charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration prior to full and complete performance of the services the credit services organization has agreed to perform for the buyer; (d) dispute or challenge, or assist a person in disputing or challenging an entry in a credit report prepared by a consumer reporting agency without a factual basis for believing and obtaining a written statement for each entry from the person stating that that person believes that the entry contains a material error or omission, outdated information, inaccurate information, or unverifiable information; (e) charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration solely for referral of the buyer to a retail seller who will or may extend credit to the buyer, if the credit that is or will be extended to the buyer is upon substantially the same terms as those available to the general public; (f) make, or counsel or advise any buyer to make, any statement that is untrue or misleading and that is known, or that by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading, to a credit reporting agency or to any person who has extended credit to a buyer or to whom a buyer is applying for an extension of credit, with respect to a buyer's creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity; (g) make or use any untrue or misleading representations in the offer or sale of the services of a credit services organization or engage, directly or indirectly, in any act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as fraud or deception upon any person in connection with the offer or sale of the services of a credit services organization; and (h) transact any business as a credit services organization, as defined in Section 13 -21-2, without first having registered with the division by paying an annual fee set pursuant to Section 63J -1-504 and filing proof that it has obtained a bond or letter of credit as required by Subsection (2).

It was deciding whether it would eliminate the requirement of proof of factual causation on the balance of probability.

In short, it is very difficult and expensive to have a SLAPP suit dismissed in Canada even if there is no credible proof that a lawsuit is an abuse of process, malicious and without factual basis.

In order to do so, the plaintiff must present proof of causation both in terms of actual, factual causation and with regard to «proximate,» or legal, causation.

And, it's at least plausible that some judges of the Supreme Court of Canada (even some in Ontario and elsewhere) might find the suggestion that Athey material contribution was never a separate test for proof of factual causation just a wee bit controversial.

Also, in B.C., since Resurfice some appellate judges seem to have expressed the view (not in dissenting reasons) that the Athey material contribution test was never a separate test for proof of factual causation in negligence but merely a causal «yardstick» explaining when the but - for test applies.

Some people, perhaps even some judges, at least those outside of British Columbia, might now find the suggestion that «materially contributed» contributed under Athey is sufficient for proof of factual causation under the balance of probability, if that's what the trial judge meant, controversial.

I see no reason to be worried about Ball's sentence — or, more generally, the fact that judges apply ordinary burdens of proof when resolving factual disputes at sentencing.

It also leaves the plaintiffs with the burden of leading voluminous evidence in order to prove, at least on a balance of probabilities, the factual basis to support their claims, including proof of Aboriginal Title, associated rights and interest, and the damages allegedly suffered.

Dismissing the appeal, the Privy Council have decided that, whatever the position as regards the generality of TCI judges, Justice Harrison's appointment was sufficient for objective independence, and that the standard of proof has no application to interlocutory applications not bearing on guilt or innocence, unless there is a specific factual precondition.

[36] Some have suggested that «but for» proof must be logically or conceptually impossible before material contribution to risk is available... Clearly the impossibility in those examples was related to difficulties with factual proof, not to logical problems inherent in the peculiarities of the case.

As I've said to others, were I a trial judge who sat on civil trials before Resurfice, I'd not know whether to be bemused or astounded at the suggested that the version of material contribution I applied then — which would have been the Athey version — was NOT a test for proof of factual causation on the balance of probability.

The provincial and territorial trial and appellate judges of Canada, and many commentators, adopted this alternative approach to proof of factual causation with some relish (of many varieties), describing this approach as the Athey material contribution test.

in reasons written by McLachlin CJ seemingly rejected, killed, and buried the Athey meaning of material contribution or materially contributed as a test for proof of factual causation on the balance of probability.

One might suppose that that Clements would have fixed the stake in Athey material contribution's heart; that is, material contribution, by any name or any version such as «materially contributes», as a method of proof of factual causation on the balance of probability where the meaning is anything less than «necessity».

Her problem was, apparently, a gap in the evidence relevant to proof of factual causation on the balance of probability.

The SCC was, and is, correct in stating that if the ABCA's view was correct, the Athey material contribution test, as the ABCA understood it, had become the default test for proof of factual causation on the balance of probability in negligence actions.

These articles may help to clarify, for some readers, some of the murkiness in the current state of Canadian common law case - law governing proof of factual causation in negligence actions.

When going for a higher job, you must provide proof in the form of factual information as your foundation for applying for the job.