This is the most
objective proof of a person's driving competence and hence the risk associated with them.
You provide facts for atrocities but you don't provide and indefatigable and
objective proof for «Christian practice» being «absurd» as you claim.
«Although the sincerity of a person's belief that a religious practice must be observed is relevant to whether the person's right to freedom of religion is at issue, an infringement of this right can not be established
without objective proof of an interference with the observance of that practice.
[21]... I do not accept [his] opinion nor do I sense that [he] has an understanding of the fundamental aspect of those chronic pain cases, which
lack objective proof.
As to scientific proof I am glad you
agree objective proofs are limited to the material scientific while Jesus speaks to the things of God which are not the things of this world.
How does anyone know for certain that the universe ceases to exist when they die, even if that cessation is only applicable to the one who has died?Without
verifiable objective proof, how does Concert in an Egg know that upon his death he will not immediately enter a new dimension in which he has become a Klingon warrior?
Atheists have as much faith as theists: because there is no universally
accepted objective proof that God exists or that God does not exit, we both take a leap of faith and end up with a «yes» or «no.»
We need more stats, more facts,
more objective proof of the efficacy of standard processes, not only to convince disgruntled Writer Beware readers that they should regruntle themselves, but also to confirm that what are subjectively assumed to be best practices based on experience and professional culture really hold up to objective scrutiny.
There have been rumors such as APK teardowns of the latest Samsung + app but the
only objective proof that the beta program exists was posted today via a Redditor who obtained access to the build.
I do not accept Dr. Ford's opinion nor do I sense that Dr. Ford has an understanding of the fundamental aspect of those chronic pain cases, which
lack objective proof.
To call something a Theory is to state that there is
objective proof.
The problem with these sorts of situations is that there is
no objective proof that there is or is not a god, and so the decision to believe or not believe is based on subjective reasoning.
To ask for factual evidence is not trying to prove Christianity wrong as much as explain that you have no reliable,
objective proof, and ask that you take that into consideration when approaching the subject.
Yet you ask for
objective proof.
And if we can't have
an objective proof, are we not in the position of having to say that the Resurrection is null and void and the life of Jesus Christ was a hopeless failure?
I think the great
objective proof, if you can talk in those terms (and I'm not sure if you really can)-- the nearest, at any rate, that you can get to objective proof of the Resurrection — is the birth of the Christian Church, this community of people who live by faith in the living Lord, and the continuity of that community down the ages in that same faith.
MAYFIELD: If we have got to look beyond
the objective proof to some experience, many people would ask, «Is there any objective proof in the first place?»
Is there
any objective proof or isn't there?
That Scripture is the Word of God is something which happens only in the here and now of encounter; it is not a fact susceptible to
objective proof.
Remember James, there is
no objective proof that jebus existed, period, end of discussion.
Often challenged because they possessed
no objective proof of their calling, prophets frequently suffered the fate of persecution and even death.
I think that is why He has not provided for «
objective proof,» at least not in the naturalistic sense.
For example, the dogmatic theologian may affirm on the grounds of the resurrection of Jesus that all men will be resurrected, without supposing that there is other evidence for this truth or that
objective proof is possible.
The Lord encounters us in a personal relationship, and personal relationship is not susceptible of
objective proof.
But before we hand over the keys to the company coffers, it couldn't hurt to take a look at
the objective proof BigLaw has for substantiating their QUALITY claim.
It has
no objective proof that it provides better quality.
There is
no objective proof that costs control will have that effect.