Sentences with phrase «logical arguments are made»

Not exact matches

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

If you're going to make an argument, at least try to make a logical statement.

If you hate them in the same way that you condemn them for being, it makes you no better than the Stereotypes you portrayed in your comment, so grow up, and use a logical argument, instead of the very hate Democrats decry, and the Tea Party embraces.

Certainly, logical arguments can be made for his lack of existence and I'm not claiming that one is foolish for believing them, but they all have reasonable criticisms and one is not foolish for disbelieving them either.

If you hate them in the same way that you condemn them for being, it makes you no better than the Stereotypes you portrayed in your comment, so grow up, and use a logical argument, instead of the very hate Democrats decry, and the Tea Party embraces.Hate against any group of people you dis - agree is still hate and is not tolerable in my opinion.

However, the main point that I was trying to make is that I object to you blindly asserting that «believers» can not furnish logical, well - reasoned arguments in support of their position.

Before science, there was no logical argument to be made against the presumed existence of gods and the supernatural.

My point was that you were making logical fallacy by attacking your opponent instead of attacking their argument, which is called an Ad Hominem fallacy.

«If you leave your wild beliefs out of your argument, you'll have a much better chance of making a point that is logical to anyone other than you» -------- So why didn't you give that advice to Doc when he insinuated that God is anthropocentric?

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.

Even when an argument is won on pure logical grounds others are not necessarily going to be convinced, for logic does not equal plausibility and because pure logic always has its own inherent bias that makes people suspicious.

Nah:» * yawn * Yes, yes, because a substantive rebuttal showing (1) the fallacy being used, (2) why it's fallacious, and (3) demonstrating how and why that makes «Colin's» argument a failure is «stupid» and «ironic» while avoiding being «logical».

* yawn * Yes, yes, because a substantive rebuttal showing (1) the fallacy being used, (2) why it's fallacious, and (3) demonstrating how and why that makes «Colin's» argument a failure is «stupid» and «ironic» while avoiding being «logical».

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.»

You are trying to make a logical argument based on faulty things.

Anyone who make's an argument against anyone or any idea by simply calling others idiot, is truly lacking any real ability to articulate logical reason for their opposition.

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.

I mean you can make an argument, as of course, [was done in] The Case for Faith... that there is a logical argument for the truth of Christianity.

And lets be honest, when you say Christianity «explained the data», you're making a philosophical argument, not a scientific or logical one.

Also, the Dad in your story wasn't attempting to make a «logical» argument, He was simply telling his son what to do.

The arguments made in this article are factual, logical and compelling.

Of course, losing two star receivers at the start of the year didn't help McAdoo's chances, so you could make the argument that he was dealt a losing hand, but with the organization moving on we're led to the next logical question: who will replace him?

@JJPawn: So next time you attempt to try and confuse or trick forum members using a fallacious argument, make sure it is logical; honest and backed up by undisputed facts, otherwise you will meet people like me who will discredit you.

I consider this to be a well - made, logical argument in support of not paying Kirk Cousins a record contract.

That should have been the reason why both of them ended up here in a Women's Championship match, but instead, we got it because Mick Foley just decided that's how it was going to be, because a heel presented him with a logical argument (explaining that both Bayley and Sasha lost thanks to a double - pin in the number one contender's match) and that just makes him cranky.

Which is another way of actually NOT making a logical argument, but instead just re-stating your point when you think you're proving it — in other words, a classic cop - out.

None of the three main parties has stood up and made the only logical argument possible in the face of Ukip's crafty and increasingly well - organised crowd - pleasing: that the greatest problems facing Britain are not caused by excessive immigration, and that an excessive clampdown on people coming in will have thoroughly unwanted consequences.

«A syllogism is a logical argument (much revered by the ancient Greeks) that makes three propositions, the first two of which (premises) make the third (concluding) statement difficult to deny.

In case after case, we are able to make a logical argument that the customer was not completely upfront with the dealership during the transaction, and had the truth been known, the dealer likely would not have gone through with the transaction.

Read on for the survey responses as well as my argument about what I think a logical next step is to make these results valuable.

Also, My Thesis Writing Service thinks that in order to do better on a philosophy thesis you should make strong and logical arguments, couple them with demonstrated knowledge, reference and discuss the philosophical concepts as well as thoroughly proofread the finished work after you are done writing it and you will do great.

In mathematics, a «proof» is a logical argument, made using established mathematical principles, that demonstrates... read more»

In mathematics, a «proof» is a logical argument, made using established mathematical principles, that demonstrates the validity of a specific claim.

I'm sorry for your mother's loss, but your argument does not make any logical sense.

To Turboblocke congrats on being the first person to post who can read and make a logical argument based on info read.

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.

You have made the logical error of affirming the truth of a consequent of an argument that, though logically sound, can not be used to discover the truth (or otherwise) of the antecedent because we know that the argument's components are F T and T or at best?

When Slide 4 is taken to the logical conclusion Lindzen seemingly wants the honourable members to draw, namely that if greenhouse gases continue on their current rise we can expect a further rise of only 0.8 C over the next 150 years, he's simply using the same linear - trend argument that Girma and Arfur Bryant love trotting out, obfuscated to make it less obvious.

It is a clear analysis of the logical structure of the IPCC argument that makes it so.

Parncutt's essay, far from being logical and objective, reflects environmentalism's failure to make logical and objective arguments, much less persuade anyone with them.

It makes the useful point that they can't deal with rational explanations or arguments — won't be able to set priorities or remember the logical points.

We then make arguments why the choices we have made are eminently logical and true.

I'm probably saying huge mistakes, but these aren't compelling evidence that the source of CO2 is «man - made» at all (although I'm not really much skeptical about it, I do worry about rigor and integrity of logical arguments).

Now compare the logical standard above with that of Vincentrj, who is trying to make Argument from ignorance in order to confuse us, and he didn't even explain how his troll relates to the topic at hand.

I admit that going into Eradicating Ecocide I was inclined to agree with Higgins — part out of personal inclination and part because nearly a year ago Polly and I sat down in Copenhagen for coffee to discuss the topic and she made a compelling case then — but just in the 200 pages presented here she does a great job examining both the historical situation which gave rise to corporate personhood and early attempts to stop pollution, more modern examples (many of which have been be well documented on TreeHugger, they being so current), and makes a good moral and logical argument that the only way we are going to truly stop ecocide is to make it a serious crime.

The argument is that the vast majority of consumers are not going to repair their own laptops and Apple's customer service will take care of what does break, which means making it repairable (and thus sacrificing the thin, slim, fast features for something slightly bulkier, slightly heavier, and thus subjectively less attractive) is not a logical or necessary choice for a company to make.

Ad hominem (Latin for «to the man» or «to the person» [1]-RRB-, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

One logical alternative argument starts with the same premise as preemption — that «the FDA requires a device that has received premarket approval to be made with almost no deviations from the specifications in its approval application.»

The logical extension of this argument is to make online anonymity impossible, or even illegal.

A lot of people can be anxious about voicing their opinions in a forum, but overcoming that fear and doing it is a great way to display confidence and an ability to make logical and structured arguments.