Sentences with phrase «not present proof»

The agent would also have to be bound in law by confidentiality laws and carry liability insurance, the judge said, adding Nordlander did not present proof of any of this.

Not exact matches

That said, it is not illegal — indeed, it is recommended — to keep track of expiration dates and gently remind employees they need to present new proof of work eligibility by those dates.

But that's not the case in Arizona, which requires businesses to use E-verify, a system in which businesses electronically verify that the documentation presented by a potential employee has matching information between the name and the social security number (securing proof of eligibility to work).

To those who do not know what «Brass» is, it's a proof - of - concept that presents early investors with a basic platform so that they can test the network.

I am so sorry that you have been told / taught such awful things about Jesus, but whether or not you believe He is fully man and also fully God, there is more than enough proof historically and in present scripture to show that labeling Him as a mysogonist and an advocate for murder is a drastically false account of who He is and what He stood for.

There is no proof without testing as testing reveals what is actually there not hypothetically present.

«The experiences of others» is particularly tricky, why does God present proof of his existence to some, but not others?

â $ œIt would seem unfair for God to present proof of His existence only to some and then judge the rest for not believing.

It would seem unfair for God to present proof of His existence only to some and then judge the rest for not believing.

T, I haven't seen you present any proof that Zeus or leprechauns don't exist.

But I, as a believer, do not have God the way I possess an object, so as to have it in my power to present the object to one who wants proof.

If you have have proof that God does not exist, present it.

the proof of Gods presence in us is not limited to the material or biological evolutionary development only, but most important scientific proof is the effect of His will in historical development of the world.A computer program now used and tested a powerful machine by inputing all recorded events in history during the last hundreds years and found out that it has a purpose and not random.Meaning that an intelligent being could have influence it.It is now presumed by the religious observers that it could be His will.The process now is under improvement, because the computers is not powerl enough the deluge of information and data since the beginning of history, some analyst believes that in them near future if the Quantum computers which is much powerful than the present coventional will be used, then dramatic results and confirmation will be at hand.

And no, you have not presented any valid proof or evidence whatsoever, despite your (dishonest) claims to the contrary, that your nasty sky fairy AKA Allah exists, which is a good thing since he seems to be a violent, murderous ass hole just like his many terrorist followers.

Neville i agree with you Jesus has the power to forgive sin past present and future through the cross when he died his death covered past present and future.If those in the old testament were justified by faith and made righteous then they are covered by the blood of Jesus even though he hadn't died for them yet because there hope was in God.Isn't that what the definition of faith is it is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things unseen.The proof is Enoch how could he go to be with God if he was not righteous and only the blood of Jesus is able to do that.

Present proof or don't say anything.

Instead they (atheists) simply don't believe any of the god claims that have been put forth (this requires no proof on their part), and * may * claim that they are convinced some god concepts that have been presented to them do not exist (this requires supporting argument).»

The burden of proof remains with those making the claim that god exists, and you have not presented any such proof.

Instead they simply don't believe any of the god claims that have been put forth (this requires no proof on their part), and * may * claim that they are convinced some god concepts that have been presented to them do not exist (this requires supporting argument).

Present your verifiable proof of that, or retract your claim if you can not.

For if your proof of the non-existence of such atheist fools is presented by simply stating it then my proof of the non-existence of Christian fools can not be refuted either.

Well, the Pope's visit to Israel in May provided the final proof, if proof were still required (which it wasn't) that something has urgently to be done about the sheer, utter, mind - numbing incompetence (one struggles for words) of those responsible for the PR of the present pontificate.

If you were not prepared to present a proof, you should not have made that claim.

Did someone actually present such a proof that is accepted generally in the scientific community or not?

Rand tells us that individuals of great talent and ambition need not hold any gratitude for others past and present in order to acknowledge and fulfill their deepest longings for power as proof own their own excellence.

Although not in themselves proof of the existence of God, the Shroud of Turin and the portrait of Our Lady of Guadeloupe present phenomena that scientists have yet to resolve despite numerous examinations by skeptics.

Luke had been at pains to make clear that the risen Jesus was no otherworldly spirit but a physical form with flesh and bones, 42 who consequently presented his disciples with infallible proofs.41 The risen Christ came to be regarded as having conducted a fresh ministry with his disciples, and in these forty days he «taught them about the kingdom of God».41 But since the experience of the risen Christ was not of this character at the end of the century when Acts was written, it had to be made clear that this kind of experience was brought to an end by a new event, the Ascension.

Given current lack of evidence for proof of anything supernatural, will there be leniency for those who simply and honestly claim, «I don't know», granted there is a supernatural, and that the Christian God is the true God who did present us with an ultimatum to accept him or not, expecting us to wage the eternal fate of our soul?

Even if, however, all the contextual and exegetical material presented above is wrong, and this verse does in fact teach that God ordained these particular Gentiles to receive eternal life (which the arguments above show He did not), this verse is still not a good proof - text for the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election.

How is not assuming something until proof is presented unscientific?

Not Benedict, there is no proof in the two cases that CNN tried to present as a smoking gun against him.

For this reason he understood the term hypostasis / substance not in the objective sense (of a reality present within us), but in the subjective sense, as an expression of an interior attitude -LSB-...] In the twentieth century this interpretation became prevalent -LSB-...] but -LSB-...] Faith is not merely a personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent -LSB-...] It gives us even now something of the reality we are waiting for, and this present reality constitutes for us a «proof of the things that are still unseen.

Given I and millions have personally experienced these transforming truths as written in the Bible and given there is no proof that anything in the Bible is not as presented there is no logical reason to doubt the Bible is not the word of God translated so that we can begin the journey.

Are you stating that you just have not found or been presented proof so you find yourself unsure of the existance of God?

There are not just six proofs for God's present existence, there are proofs for his past and future existence as well.

The result is that his first «proof,» in the form in which he presents it, is not valid.

Maclntyre's interpretation squares better than that of critics like G. E. Moore (PE 66f) with Mill's own claim that he can not give what is «commonly understood by proof» for his doctrine, but will present only «considerations capable of determining the intellect either to give or withhold its assent» (U7).

He first presents a mathematical proof, inspired by Bell's theorem, that a contradiction results if one assumes: (a) the principle of local causes, (b) an elementary theorem of quantum mechanics, and (c) what Stapp calls the «assumption of contrafactual definiteness» (roughly the assumption that measuring procedures which were not carried out would have yielded definite results had they been carried out and that these possible but unrealized results are restricted by the same laws that apply to the results of actual measurements).

You won't have to do any reasearch, present any kind of proof, publish any papers.

When it comes to the gods presented by various believers, atheism AND agnosticism (the two go together, usually as they are not mutually exclusive positions — a grandmother can also be a wife) is the most sensible stance until proof can be evaluated..

Since President Obama was forced to offer up his birth certificate I don't think it is so absurd of a though to ask the political candidates to present some form of proof that god has call upon the specifically to run this country.

Nii - Don't waste your time with the Atheists, when presented with proof on God they say you are twisting things to suit the Bible.

I will not believe in a god until I am presented with proof.

Another stumbling block of the Christian Faith which presents itself in various forms to the modern scientific temper of mind is that the truth of such faith is not susceptible to scientific «proof.»

Beyond that... using a hypothetical scenario where you don't know what would've happened as proof the process doesn't work is stupid when instead you can just look at the present and see the team won 52 games this year and has multiple stars.

a few of our own players past and present have suggested that wenger doesn't talk much to them, let alone lay out tactics to them.The player's having their own meeting before the Utd game at the Emirates last year is more proof!

What the court decided was that when credible evidence (not proof) is presented the blame can be made.

He proposes to create a statewide reconciliation commission to address police / community relations; recruit more minorities into law enforcement; make publicly available race and ethnic data on police actions; buy replacement vests, body cameras and bullet - proof glass for patrol cars in high crime areas; appoint an independent monitor to review police cases where an unarmed civilian dies and the case is not presented to the grand jury, or the grand jury fails to indict.

If the connection is proven, this is further proof that these maps are not only an invasion of privacy but that they present a clear and present danger to law - abiding, private citizens.

During a talk at Harvard, he presented a proof of the related, general conjecture that as prime numbers increase toward infinity, the spaces between them — counterintuitively — do not always do the same: No matter how big prime numbers get, you'll always find pairs of them that differ by, at the very most, 70 million.