Sentences with phrase «logical arguments for it»

2005 «Dave Eggers and assorted authors present logical arguments for improving the teaching profession.»

Then the Christian turns to Romans 1, or to some of the logical arguments for the existence of God.

In addition to the personal, emotional reasons for accepting death, there are also some logical arguments for it.

Writers and commentators present entirely logical arguments for why a tax or a regulation aimed at levelling the playing field between regular homebuyers and the world's ultra-rich would be an entirely reasonable response to what clearly is an unusual situation.

There is ZERO valid logical argument for this thingy «God» that you claim to exist.

Perhaps you should modify your non-sequitor into a logical argument for me to address?

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.

At this point I'm willing to address a logical argument for the existence of a god unless it's something stupid like Kalam or TAG.

The following is a simple, logical argument for my belief that the appearances of bread and wine are literally the appearances of Jesus in the Eucharist.

With a Champions League spot virtually unattainable, there is no logical argument for saying that results will suddenly improve and, other than pride, there will be little to drive the players forward.

But predicting the future as being more bleak than I can see any logical argument for just gives me more enthusiasm to see him stick out another year, finish 3rd (maybe win a cup, or do well in the Champions League!)

The purpose of this perspective, then, is to provide a logical argument for a new approach to classifying human disease that both appreciates the uses and limits of reductionism and incorporates the tenets of the non ‐ reductionist approach of complex systems analysis.

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,...

Preparing a logical argument for a problem statement is a challenge when a solution is not needed!

And he seemed to have a logical argument for his position as Joe often does.

The fact that no other forcing can account for said warming is not the logical argument for the veracity of the theory, it is only one piece of information that confirms the conclusion that all of the other evidence points to.

So here's a logical argument for you:

Not exact matches

There are reasonable arguments for adopting the measures used in Quality and Price over those used in the Magic Formula, but it's not an unambiguously more logical approach than the Magic Formula.

Crixus — HUGE logical falllacy in your argument,» I know for certain that no human being hears the voice of God simply because I never have.»

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.

For professed logical and rational thinkers to fill their opinions with logical fallacies renders any argument suspect.

Nevertheless, the philosopher himself believes that all arguments for God can be reduced to the logical absurdity of arguing for the existence of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

For Whitehead, given his implicit rejection of the Hegelian distinction between a logic of the understanding and a logic of reason, and given his conception of the nature of the metaphysical argument, God is not, and can not be the inevitable culmination of such a logical progression.

If those who have most deeply entered into the contemporary situation find what is said dull or vacuous, it is not saved by the amount of evidence amassed for its conclusions or the tightness of its logical arguments.

Not to mention, this entire post is one long and contra - biblical argument that you / we shouldn't argue about theology, without ever setting forth clear and logical propositions that NOT arguing (again, fill in whatever verb you're more comfortable with, the result is the same) theology honors God more than standing in the gap and defending the truth he has set forth once and for all.

She knows the heart of God more than anyone else I know, and so while she may not know all the logical arguments or Scripture passages for various theological views, she senses rightness and wrongness in various theological positions.

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.

Besides, the Kalam argument breaks down the moment it demands special pleading for a creator being, therefore it can never be characterized as a «logical» argument proving anything.

For some logical arguments, I suggest: http://christianthinktank.com/ and also http://givemeananswer.org/

First, Colin's argument was neither logical nor well thought out precisely for the reasons above.

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.

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.»

Again, it is my hope to engage in a logical argument and I thank you for not resorting to put downs and personal attacks.

derp, I'm wondering if you have read the book by Dr. Stephen Myers called «Signature in the Cell» which argues that specifically encoded DNA strands store information in a precise and logical manner which provides some evidence that an argument for intelligent design is present?

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.

Naturally, we question Islam, for aren't we concerned how the (lukewarm) Islamist might suddenly become the «hot» literalist, and carry their arguments to the logical conclusion?

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.

For a logic and rhetoric based on a logical model, testimony can only be an alienation of meaning or, to speak the language of Aristotle in the Rhetoric, a means of non-technical proof, that is, external to all the arguments that the orator can invent.

You're fearful because your arguments are built on foundational leaps of faith that science must fail itself in order for the rest of it to be true, rather than the simple and logical answer that there must be a creator.

Logical arguments may do the same, you don't want to be known for that do you?

... 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.

In an earlier attack he argues that (for some reason) using the «if, then» argument (if torturing a man will held defend our troops, then we ought to torture him) to support the use of torture by government officials on our enemies, isn't legitimate, because (crazy logical leap) many interrogators say torture doesn't work -LRB-!?).

In a world oriented around printed words, the sermon competed for attention by seeking to possess the qualities of a written text: logical development, clear argument, thorough and conclusive treatment.

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!

He has stated elsewhere, for example, that the fact that evil presents no serious logical or probabilistic argument against God's existence or goodness will be cold and abstract comfort to a person who is faced with «the shocking concreteness of a particularly appalling exemplification of evil» (AP 35 - 36).

Let's assume for a minute that your argument about the skiers is logical, which it is not, these skiers are not certain they won't fall, they are simply more certain that they can avoid that possibility better and that when it does happen they can recover faster — I was amazed at some of the recoveries I saw in the games.

The case for the flood being a regional event that generated multiple myths is the most logical and simplest argument.

The argument must be logical and rooted in the fundamental belief that America is a free nation that respects religious rights for all.