Sentences with phrase «if by a proof»

Not exact matches

«So when Trump says he wants to «open up» libel law, he really means (if he has the slightest knowledge of the law) that he wants to open up — to change — the First Amendment, which, beginning in 1964, has been held to require in cases brought by public figures, proof that what was said was false, and that the newspaper knew or suspected that it was false.

If you purchased one of its bags through crowdfunding, you can attempt to get a refund for that purchase by going to the company's Proof of Claims page.

Because the ledger thus created is shared by all of them, if anyone wants to go back and change any of the data, they would have to change every single copy of it, making the blockchain all but tamper - proof.

«If you assume that for many years China has been misallocating investment (by which I simply mean that the resulting increase in productivity generated by the investment was less than the correctly calculated debt - servicing cost)...» How about not «assuming» and offer proof?

Please be advised that in accordance with the Order Amending the Claims Procedure Order granted October 30, 2015, if the Monitor intends to revise or reject a Claim, the Monitor shall notify the Claimant who has delivered such Proof of Claim or D&O Proof of Claim, as applicable, that such Claim has been revised or rejected and the reasons therefor, by sending a Notice of Revision or Disallowance by no later than December 15, 2015, unless otherwise ordered by the Court on application by the Monitor.

If you were a Hillary Clinton supporter, every statement by Donald Trump fortified your faith that he would lose the election, and you took the consensus of polls as proof she would win.

There is no credibility that anyone has made money and if they have, ask them for audited proof by the big 4.

I'm thinking that, unless Vitalik subtly managed to telepathically hack everyone's brains so buyers would participate in the pre-sale in an organized fashion, it would appear that a lot of Ether — enough Ether to move markets or, if the system migrates to proof - of - stake, enough to play a meaningful role in determining consensus on a block - by - block basis — was sold to not a lot of people.

If this trend is anything to go by, then CBA's results may be proof that «if it ain't linked to pay, it ain't going to happen.&raquIf this trend is anything to go by, then CBA's results may be proof that «if it ain't linked to pay, it ain't going to happen.&raquif it ain't linked to pay, it ain't going to happen.»

@sciper: ok so you're saying that faith, which requires no proof works well with science that requires not only proof, but is only accepted if challenged by peers and tested over and over again... sure they get along great.

and there has yet to be definitive proof of ape evolving into human if you have it please by all means post it the world would like to see it, oh and you forgot to put in how evolution has as many gaps as any religion like Genesis Park describes a number of images drawn by Neanderthals and by humans in the Middle East which resemble dinosaurs.

«If you will turn the table of the burden of proof you have to agree with me that the universe was created by the great pink unicorn with golden ears, because you can not disprove that such a creature with unlimited power exists.»

Personally, I feel that if there is a god, and he wants me to believe he exists, he can come over here and tell me himself, I don't accept the Bible as «proof» of anything, because it is self - contradictory and appears to be heavily influenced by the governing culture of the time.

You can't by wishful thinking, or an ontological proof, or by any means at all make it real if it is not.

If by chance you ever get something you asked for, that will serve as proof that God exists and our religion is the right religion.

Ben... if you have evidential proof of the existence of your god, by all means, present it.

The burden of proof should fall on the religious; if it did we'd be rid of their nonsense by now.

If you submitted your proof of purchase by April 18th at 11:59 p.m. EDT you can expect to receive your unique download code for Seven Songs via email by Tuesday, April 21st.

So what you're telling me by repeating the statement that jesus isn't going to prove himself to unbelievers is that the ONLY way I can have proof that god exists is if I already believe in him?

the proof of Gods presence in us is not limited to the material or biological evolutionary development only, but most important scientific proof is the effect of His will in historical development of the world.A computer program now used and tested a powerful machine by inputing all recorded events in history during the last hundreds years and found out that it has a purpose and not random.Meaning that an intelligent being could have influence it.It is now presumed by the religious observers that it could be His will.The process now is under improvement, because the computers is not powerl enough the deluge of information and data since the beginning of history, some analyst believes that in them near future if the Quantum computers which is much powerful than the present coventional will be used, then dramatic results and confirmation will be at hand.

All you christian regulars who have vehemently denied the big bang and called it a lie or a plot by atheists to persecute christians or an absolute impossibility... need to slap yourselves forcefully in the face if you are now trying to say that the big bang is a proof of your god's existence.

You say she has no proof that she has seen angels but do you have proof that she has not see angels and if you have proof that she has not I would love for you to point it out and we believe GOD is real for we walk by faith and not by sight but you say no one has proof that GOD existed but think about this what would lose believing in GOD if he doesn't exist?

Neville i agree with you Jesus has the power to forgive sin past present and future through the cross when he died his death covered past present and future.If those in the old testament were justified by faith and made righteous then they are covered by the blood of Jesus even though he hadn't died for them yet because there hope was in God.Isn't that what the definition of faith is it is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things unseen.The proof is Enoch how could he go to be with God if he was not righteous and only the blood of Jesus is able to do that.

You do know that by your definition of proof, anyone can be convinced to believe in anything just cause it makes them feel good (you could now be worshiping LSD if that is what you tested and wanted to have faith in)

For if your proof of the non-existence of such atheist fools is presented by simply stating it then my proof of the non-existence of Christian fools can not be refuted either.

So as you live your life by empirical proof as you wish — as if you can depend on your eye sight and memory as imperfect as they are — remember each one of us will give account for what they have done in this life.

At the outset we do well to remember that even if the historicity of this discovery by the women could be confidently substantiated, it would still not be a proof of the resurrection of Jesus.

I just haven't seen scientific proof either way, so I try to get rid of the hubris by saying that I simply don't know if there is a god (s) or not.

My proof for this is the fact in over 2000 years at least man as taken away bits of the bible from their daily life so by example if the heads of all religions have changed stuff from the old days then clearly they don't fear god so he must be false

I think the great objective proof, if you can talk in those terms (and I'm not sure if you really can)-- the nearest, at any rate, that you can get to objective proof of the Resurrection — is the birth of the Christian Church, this community of people who live by faith in the living Lord, and the continuity of that community down the ages in that same faith.

If we are fooled by the media companies about other countries, there are still people who will demand real proof before taking any action.

In 1837, the first editor of Washington's Collected Works wrote: «If a man who spoke, wrote, and acted as a Christian through a long life, who gave numerous proofs of his believing himself to be such, and who was never known to say, write, or do a thing contrary to his professions, if such a man is not to be ranked among the believers of Christianity, it would be impossible to establish the point by any train of reasoning.&raquIf a man who spoke, wrote, and acted as a Christian through a long life, who gave numerous proofs of his believing himself to be such, and who was never known to say, write, or do a thing contrary to his professions, if such a man is not to be ranked among the believers of Christianity, it would be impossible to establish the point by any train of reasoning.&raquif such a man is not to be ranked among the believers of Christianity, it would be impossible to establish the point by any train of reasoning.»

In the absence of proof that the God so confidently invoked by the orthodox bishop really exists in the world, perhaps Merrick in his last moments is yet attempting, in his confused way, to «Follow the way by which [others] began,» as Pascal wrote, accepting the sacraments, discipline and consolations of the church and now imitating Christ's death as if he believed in their efficacy.

If I were to get the proof, I would change my mind... but I need much more proof than a musty 2000 year old book written by men.

Thus if true proof of the existence of God is presented in the here and now to believers, they will flog it, scourge it, and crucify it in an instant by whatever means.

Markos, all you are doing is taking these verses out of context.the four verses that you mention are constantly used by people who hate islam to distort the true meaning.First of all, you need to post the entire chapter and it's interpretation to put it into context.You can't just take one verse out of a chapter with a couple of hundred verses and use it as proof that islam is a violent religion.The quran was revealed in small segments during the life of prophet muhammad and wasn; t revealed all at once.There is a long story to these verses which could require an entire page to tell.look it up.EVERY RELIGIOUS BOOK HAS TEXTS THAT CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.I am sure that if I look in the jewish torah, talmud or even the bible especially the old testament, i'll find many texts that I can take out of context.

I guess if you are going to believe in an all knowing, all powerful sky daddy, reading an old compilation of 60 different books from 40 different authors put together by a group of supposedly reformed pagans 1600 years ago would just be putting your faith to the test, I mean a person with faith needs no proof.

He first presents a mathematical proof, inspired by Bell's theorem, that a contradiction results if one assumes: (a) the principle of local causes, (b) an elementary theorem of quantum mechanics, and (c) what Stapp calls the «assumption of contrafactual definiteness» (roughly the assumption that measuring procedures which were not carried out would have yielded definite results had they been carried out and that these possible but unrealized results are restricted by the same laws that apply to the results of actual measurements).

I have no idea if you merely wasted time by picking your nose and did not even ask God to provide proof.

Yet another proof that people will find excuses to like certain groups by even editing the meaning in the bible if they are liked my masses.

A proof I incline to prefer is given by von Wright, who does not mention the other proofs.1 In sum, apart from logical niceties, the argument is: a thing can not have contradictory predicates at one and the same time; but, if change is continuous, no time can be found, unless an absolute instant, in which a process is not both p and not - p for some predicate.

If the claim were substantiated, THEN saying «No it doesn't» would be a positive claim in need of proof by the skeptic.

Systematic exposition can not get over this problem by simply relegating the use of scripture to «proof texts» if it is to be academically respectable.

If and when there is doc - umentation and proof showing anyone in the RC hierarchy has committed a crime by participating in or knowingly and purposely hiding evidence, then he should be arrested and prosecuted according to the law.

15 «On the one hand, it is a good proof of our obedience when we listen to his ministers, just as if he were addressing us himself; and on the other hand, he has provided for our infirmity, by choosing to address us through the medium of human interpreters, that he may sweetly allure us to him, rather than to drive us away from him by his thunders.»

If you purchased the book by the on - sale date, please do forward your dated proof of purchase to gfsmallbites [at] gmail [dot] com.

* If you do not use instant yeast, you will need to proof the yeast by stirring into the lukewarm water and letting sit until dissolved and foamy.

If you're using store bought chocolate, melt by placing in a heat proof bowl set over a pan of boiling water.

Most people are afraid to make nougat, because it's more like a science than cooking, but I will show you step by step how to make this perfect everytime (call this recipe fool - proof if you will).

If you need more proof that reducing sugar intake is important for your health, listen to Dr. Mark Hyman interviewed by John Robbins on Food Revolution Network, or watch the documentary FED UP.