Sentences with phrase «never make his argument»

Oh, and for the record, I would never make the argument that I'm smarter than a theist solely because I refuse to believe in god.

We've now stumbled from issue, to crisis, to non-issue for almost a year and this guy never makes his argument convincingly.

So we would never make the argument that dogs in general are a better model for the human mind — it's really just this special set of social skills.»

He acknowledges that he could never make his argument in the form of a video game or TV show: it takes a book to make the case.

He acknowledges that he could never make his argument in the

But the AFT will never make that argument because it opens up the door for expanding choice, voucherizing school funding, and putting traditional districts from which the union draws its very existence out of business.

I never made that argument.

and just to drive the point home it is vital that scientists never make these arguments.

Not exact matches

The argument could be made that you could never understand Bale when he spoke as Batman or that he was helped heavily by director Christopher Nolan.

Finally, there's a fairly simple political argument that Republicans can make to defend the sunset of the individual tax cuts: Congress would never let it happen.

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

If you claim the methodology of neutralizing potentially confounding variables limits possibilities to that of the natural then you also make an argument for the supernatural never to be observed by science due to it's methodology.

To say that it will never be forgiven as long as they don't believe removes all the force from Jesus» warning, and makes His argument redundantly self - evident.

All so you could introduce completely fallacious straw men arguments we never made (who mentioned Dispensationalism or the Rapture here?)

My point being that taking a member of the set of all things Jesus never explicitly taught on and positing, if only by implication, that his silence is an endorsement of that thing is not a valid foundation for making a sound argument.

You tried to claim otherwise the other day, but you never actually had any argument, every point you tried to make was shot down because there was no logic or reason behind it, so you failed.

One argument against the Null Hypothesis concerning God, but not limited to, can be that Elementary Subatomic Particles, aka Quarks, can never be observed nor can they be found in singularity / isolation, yet they can be detected by what they make up, that is Composite Subatomic Particles, aka Hadrons.

An argument can be made that if someone came to you and said «I have a 300 lb diamond buried in my backyard.I've never seen it but I know it's there»... you'd raise an eyebrow and probably say «oooooo k» but in the back of your head your thinking this guy is nuts.

I never said that atheist have the better argument, sorry if that was what it seemed, but that was never my intent And no, I don't want you to believe that might makes right, I've not really shared my view.

Most swing voters have never heard a conservative make an extended argument for any kind of market - oriented health care reform.

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.

Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz

It never stops surprising me how people are willing to twist the truth to make an argument that makes them «appear» correct.

Attempts have often been made to show that this man never lived, that he is entirely the product of early Christian imagination, but these attempts have at no time succeeded in convincing more than a few, and it is inconceivable that they would ever convince the Christian, for the event whose historicity is to him more than the conclusion of an argument but is witnessed to by his own being as a Christian — this event includes the appearance in history of this man.

It is unfortunate that he never made a disciplined theological argument about King's theological importance in his published writings.

In his letter of December 10, 1934 Brightman shares Hartshorne's worry, «that other selves are merely inferred but never given,» and goes on to present his own empiricist colors «I'd like to be able to make sense out of the idea of a literal participation in other selves... whenever I try, I find myself landed in contradiction, in epistemological chaos, and in unfaithfulness to experience...» Brightman's argument is that any «intuition» (for him a synonym for «experience»), «is exclusively a member of me,» but the object of that intuition is «always problematic and distinct from the conscious experience which refers to it.»

If god made the universe in such a way that kids could never know about death or disease or deformity until a certain age, then maybe you could use an argument like that, but not the way things are.

NO one has to refute anything you say, as you never once have made a ration argument.

Peteyroo, whereas I am confident you will never make a good argument, because you have proven over and over again that your points are only made with contempt, sarcasm and outright lies.

Use any argument you want to justify, defend, or denounce those things man - made, but never bring the name of our Lord and saviour into the argument as a means to an end.

You are making an argument from as - sumption when you say «It can never exist without an original cell».

All that would be claimed is this: If we engage in the practice of theological education, then we commit ourselves to the view that it is possible to make truth claims about God and to weigh arguments in favor of and against them, even if they never are and perhaps never can be «knock down» decisive arguments.

Because the argument could also be made — and many have — that the other teams don't want our former players because they were never properly coached and develeped, nor were they provided the opportunity to showcase their talents on the field.

In my opinion Arsenal and Wenger will probably surprise us and appoint a manager we have never heard of, just like they did with the prof.. But just for the sake of argument I am going to make my choice from people we know.

Dogra reportedly got into a fiery argument at the NFL Combine with Rob Brzezinski, Minnesota's vice president of football operation, and «made it clear that Peterson would never play there again.»

While I love Tippett and I think you could make a solid argument that we never really improved on him since we let him go; he also had a pretty good team for a few years while he was in Dallas and still just wasn't able to get it done.

Further, it's gotten to the point where any comment made in support of an argument made by the right is labeled racist, etc., as if someone in a political position one doesn't share can never be right about anything (a problem shared by both those on the left and right).

Following my loss, I was very committed to respecting the individual decisions of my clients, recognizing that they can make an educated decision and choose which risks and benefits better align with their ideals, and as importantly I would stand on principle (and with a good argument) when persecuted rather than abandon my clients pretending I had never participated in their care.

It would be better if officials at least addressed the heart of the matter, rather than fighting imaginary arguments on points which their critics never made.

You never allow facts to get in the way of the delusional arguments you make.

Always having government imposed numbers to hide behind, councillors were never put in a place where they had to make strong, positive arguments for increased local housing.

That was the gospel according to Wolfowitz, and although I [incorrectly in hindsight] supported the invasion because of the argument Tony Blair made in his great speech to Commons that I watched thanks to PBS, I never bought Wolfowitz's vision.

The city lawsuit filed Dec. 15 by Miner makes a different argument: that COR officials reneged on repeated promises never to seek a PILOT for the Inner Harbor.

But he never made the full - throated arguments for a larger more active state.

So if you ever want to see if we have a problem in policing related to race, pay related to gender or a problem with violence against transgender individuals, in all of those cases it becomes impossible to make a scientific argument — because if those categories are never recorded in official documents, you can never do the data collection to show what's true.

You never made an «argument», you simply spouted unsupported rhetoric in a manner that was dismissive and rude.

For making such an absolute claim that high carbs will never reverse diabetes and being shown to be utterly wrong, your argument has no validity.

So we have to compare them side by side, and make arguments for and against them until the never ending battle is done.

This always bothered me in part because it wasn't my experience (or the experienc of those I talk to) and also because the argument is normally made by people who have never tried online dating.

Oh, I'd never torture an innocent child (or have a robot torture her, to make the argument less psychological) to save 100 people.