Sentences with phrase «logical argument from»

I have yet to see a logical argument from you on this point.

And Anselm seems to invite this sort of separation of the logical argument from its place in his text.

I'll keep providing you with logical arguments from an educated and pragmatic Shenmue fan: https://www.youtube.com/wat... All 3 of your choices are pretty awful.

Not exact matches

Unfortunately, we drifted away from the actual question, dreamed about a logical fallacy and refuted an argument that was never made.

Other than that, congratulations, that was the finest example of the logical fallacy known as an «Argument from Ignorance» that I have seen in a long time.

First of all, it's a logical fallacy — the argument from popularity.

I find it funny that the Christian position, when met with any logical argument to discount the greatness of the Bible, can only cite more passages from the same book, as opposed to countering with a equally logical counter position.

But, the fact that we don't know does not mean we must suddenly come to the conclusion that is MUST be god — that's a logical fallacy — the argument from ignorance.

A common argument I often hear from those who try to prove to me that Jesus rose from the dead, is that because the tomb where Jesus was supposedly buried was empty the only logical conclusion was that he must have risen.

Bernardo, I just think you are continuing to be silly in professing to have wisdom to impart and continuing down this path of rhetoric about a «myth» and logical fallacy of argument from authority.

you are attempting to use the logical fallacy argument from authority.

That in itself proves nothing — using it to argue for God's existence is simply an argument from authority, which is a well - known logical fallacy.

Their argument seems to imply they don't share that empathy... they are ultimately worried about being punished, in the end I don't truly believe they don't share the same empathy, but it is funny that is a logical conclusion to make from their position.

«Throughout this post we've seen all manner of TAG (Kalam's Cosmological Argument, Argument from Design, Argument from Complexity, Argument from Morality, Logical Absolutes... etc.) every one of which has been thoroughly refuted».

Throughout this post we've seen all manner of TAG (Kalam's Cosmological Argument, Argument from Design, Argument from Complexity, Argument from Morality, Logical Absolutes... etc.) every one of which has been thoroughly refuted and at best would indicate only an extremely unlikely yet possible indifferent deist creator who set things in motion.

Please google «logical fallicies, argument from authority».

Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage / same - sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible.

We shall take our definition of logical possibility from Hartshorne himself: «A described state of affairs is «logically possible» if the description «makes sense» and involves no contradictions» (6: 593) What Hartshorne means by «makes sense» is never clearly spelled out in his arguments.

Aside from the fact that this argument isn't logical (the desire for a guarantee doesn't imply the guarantee exists), it is also * not true.

... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself.

See, Johnny, that's exactly my point; I present people like you with well - developed arguments and, when you have run out logical avenues by which to respond, you turn immediately to the mantras of your faith — «jesus rose from the dead».

Of course, from a strictly logical viewpoint, no amount of analogy, however appropriately selected and arranged, constitutes conclusive proof in argument.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

Your huge logical jump invalidates your argument, try connecting all the dots instead of going from 1 straight to 50 and then saying you kno what the entire picture looks like.

[47] His second argument, which follows from the first, is that once the caricature of «constant speedism» is dismissed, we are left with one logical alternative, which Dawkins terms «variable speedism.»

And if we affirm that Jesus was true God and true man and believe that he rose bodily from the tomb, then logical consistency demands that we not use the Enlightenment's antisupernatural, deistic or naturalistic arguments against traditional views on the virgin birth, the miracle stories of the Bible, the presence of the Holy Spirit, the future return of Christ, prayer and others.

The reason I ask you to face the realities of your argument here is because I'm hoping that you'll take a close look at the logical and ethical inconsistencies of your own position, and learn something about yourself from that close look.

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 you now consequently wish to take, as you previously have, my stance as proof that you are right and that Arsenal are indeed especially persecuted by the media, then you are merely indulging in the logical fallacy, ad ignorantiam — aka argument from ignorance.

This is effective stuff from Balls - good rhetoric, logical argument, strong parliamentary performance.

Each week, each day finds a new top 5 emerging and looking at the nine men who have garnered votes from the Gold Rush Gang you could make a logical argument for ANY of them to make the the cut,...

At the same time, from a logical point of view, one could make the argument that all those excited about the new portable got theirs on launch day.

Help students learn to tell an emotional argument from a logical one, a manipulative strategy from one that is straightforward in its persuasiveness.

A thesis or research proposal is likely to require some degree of research to gain an understanding of the subject in order to develop and base logical arguments on it, or a student may benefit from a good sample research paper to guide them.

As I pointed out in the review, the problem with SM is not logical (though I don't see how earning 0 % on the investments bought with borrowed money is coming out ahead, but for argument sake let us suppose that an investor is earning 7 % -8 % from a diversified portfolio) but psychological.

From this perspective, it might be less important for animal advocates to put together the best logical arguments, and more important to shape public opinion in a way that creates judges who rule in favor of animal personhood.

Victor makes an argument from personal incredulity while accusing others of using logical fallacies.

divorce yourself from the parties involved and just look at the logical form of the argument.

Argument from authority is only a logical fallacy if the authorities cited lack relevant expertise.

The second contention suffers from another logical fallacy: it sets up our essay's argument for supporting innovative technologies as a straw man argument favoring «mysterious nonexistent technology.»

By adopting a similar tactic, supporters of the mainstream view risk committing the logical fallacy known as «argument from ignorance.»

Mosher:» divorce yourself from the parties involved and just look at the logical form of the argument.»

Inevitably, the people suffering from a change will fight back - and frequently with arguments that sound logical - but may be wildly incomplete.

«One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance.

steven mosher says: «divorce yourself from the parties involved and just look at the logical form of the argument.»

Argument from authority does not settle a logical argument, true, but we are not having a logical argument in that senseArgument from authority does not settle a logical argument, true, but we are not having a logical argument in that senseargument, true, but we are not having a logical argument in that senseargument in that sense anyway.

Solid arguments always reach me, but logical errors fall off me like water from a duck.

Further, he makes the classic logical error of «begging the question» or assuming the proposition as part of the «proof» when he says Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, in addition to the obvious argument from authority.

For a view from the ground, my friend and colleague, Hans Brenna, a climate researcher currently investigating the role of volcanoes on stratospheric chemistry, believes that the logical result of arguments against advocacy are a slippery slope.

I write in an attempt to escape from the loop of irrational assertions with which you are responding to all evidence and logical argument.