Sentences with phrase «making circular arguments»

You're making circular arguments, and you're also misusing the term «belief», applying to the same meaning as «faith».

@Observer: Sorry, you are making a circular argument.

Does IPCC rely sufficiently on Ammann to make this a circular argument?

Not exact matches

It would be equally unfair to use your belief that God is imaginary,» Using your god as the starting point makes your argument circular, hence worthless.

Well, FAITH, there's the problem... that gibberish in the bible was just made up by «some guy» to keep the peasants behaving in a manner that whomever wrote it thought was a good way to behave... some of those guys were wise, yes, and there are benefits to following some of the «guidelines» set forth in the Bible... but it's a circular argument to use the Bible as a reason to have faith, because you have to first BELIEVE in the deity, THEN believe that the deity inspired the writings, THEN you can take the writings as «truth»... I'm two steps back, not believing in the deity at all (Yay, Atheists!

But for your sake - I made three earlier - that Luke's arguments were contradictory, unsubstantiated and circular.

In essence, the rhetorical weight of his argument seems to assume God's existence in the first place, which makes the argument fundamentally circular in nature.

All the evidence for the divine is founded in the bible, a book made by man, and is therefore a circular and faulty argument.

Read up on it and then please refrain from making such absurd circular arguments.

Let's stipulate (in hopes of making some progress) that the «it's circular» argument is not persuasive.

Enough parameters (two extra in this case) does make the argument essentially circular.

Unless it raises a new point, responding would make the argument circular, which Mike Jonas would surely object to.

the «kludge» argument that the IPCC using indirect modelling makes their argument «circular» doesn't have evidence to back it up.

In short, I think although the uncertainties are there, as you correctly point out, the limited information you give can be misleading and the «kludge» argument that the IPCC using indirect modelling makes their argument «circular» doesn't have evidence to back it up.

One has to be careful of statements less unstated assumptions make one's argument circular.

His argument is, of course, this identical piece of circular reasoning, but repeating it doesn't make it logically valid.

Our previous post, and one the week before looked at the arguments emerging from climate activists about what to make of the existence of an email news circular, operated by Marc Morano, the Communications Director at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, under Republican Senator James Inhofe.

Makes for great circular arguments.

Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion «buffer» correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.

So, unless one wants to make an incredibly circular argument, the models are useless in determining how much CO2 affects history.