Sentences with phrase «only valid argument»

Pretty much the only valid argument for introducing a test is to ensure that schools step up their game in teaching the national curriculum requirement.

@Mike, not me, you said: You say there is no way to investigate, but that is only a valid argument for today because they are all dead.

You say there is no way to investigate, but that is only a valid argument for today because they are all dead.

Not exact matches

@Liz — It seems like the argument you are making is valid but only from the perspective of either creating a high risk of complication / retardation which science has proven when children are born to closely related people, and the «Ick» factor of not wanting to imagine two siblings getting it on.

Even if Theo or Vic constructed an argument with a valid conclusion stemming from its premises and free of fallacies, it is still only logic.

The flaw in your thinking is that your argument is only valid when both people share the same belief system, which is not the case 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.

IN all the arguments for and against abortion, the ONLY valid statement made is one of CHOICE.

The argument that life begins at conception is absurd in that what should be said is parasitic life begins at conception, actual human life only becomes a valid argument when the fetus is able to live outside the womb, prior to that the life is basically in the hands of the host — mother.

Valid a priori arguments, indeed, may be held only to «impoverish» experience in the sense that they show the intrinsic unsatisfactoriness of certain ways of understanding reality and bring to light the structures involved in any understanding of it which presupposes and is consistent with the principle of rationality.

@NAH, can rebut each of Colin's points in a reasonable manner, specifically let me call out two (both sort of related)-- the Christianity refers to only 600 years of history, and only refers to a small geography (not even the entire earth)-- why «leap of faith» argument is valid for Christianity and not for other independent faiths, which have many contradictory beliefs compared to Christianity, and if they are equally valid, how can they all be equally valid

There are no valid arguments in his statement only opinion.

He shows that this is similar to Chesterton's approach and W.V.O. Quine's argument that «the only valid test of a belief is whether it fits into a web of connected beliefs that accords with our experience of the whole» (p. 63 - I would think that Newman's concept of the «Illative Sense» would dovetail with this.)

Hartshorne's argument, if valid, is valid only if Hartshorne's God exists, but Hartshorne fails to prove the existence of his God.

In this paper I shall (1) briefly set forth this argument; (2) show that the argument, if it is valid, is valid only for a Hartshornean God; (3) argue that, since Hartshorne's God does require that at least something (anything will do) contingent exists, the «new» ontological argument fails even for Hartshorne's God, because it is logically possible that there should be nothing at all, total non-being.

By the way, that was me pretending to be you Red Dwarf because I have no valid argument and can only act like a 3rd grade child when faced with actual logic and reason.

Tom Tom makes too many as sumptions about others.No wonder it can't make a valid argument and why does it have to think that it is only one that lives in a good neighborhood and that everyone else lives in a trailor?

I think it is fair to say that the only ones who admit the argument is valid are the ones who believe that God is at the very least a theoretical possibility.

McMahon does make a valid point, and he added another important argument that Mourinho will only risk more criticism if he plays negatively and City still win.

But any actions would only be seen as legally valid if there was an argument to fall back on that they were being enacted on at least someone's advice, and with some elected minister's consent.

Note that this argument only holds for when the customer knows in advance what the exchange rate would be, for cases where it is calculated afterwards I have not found any valid excuse for such large margins (except that it allows them to offer other services at a lower price because these transaction).

The only argument which I think is valid is that there will be a limitation to the production capacity of solar panels.

But the argument that a cyclist is less likely to kill someone else is only valid up to a point - after all, unpredictable road users are a danger to everyone - and when I'm driving I would much rather know that the cyclist in front of me is sober and is unlikely to wobble into my path.

It's always amusing to read in the «skept - o - sphere,» the thousands and thousands and thousands of comments on the subject of whether there is a «consensus» and even more interestingly, precisely how big that «consensus» is, from people who say that the noting the existence of a «consensus» is not only a fallacious argument, but that in fact noting that there is a «consensus» is antithetical to the valid practice of science.

For this «moral hazard» argument to be valid, we would have to believe that CDR approaches will be able to not only catch up to other renewable technologies in cost within a short - time frame, but then continue to reduce costs more quickly.

But if by this you were only referring to indecent or obscene remarks, I certainly do not categorize these as valid contradictory arguments.

The argument need not be valid, only «plausible» to the «useful idiots» that are the target of propaganda.

A nice thing about the Bayesian approach is that it encourages discussion of our assumptions (i.e. the prior)-- the conclusion of even a correctly constructed logical argument is only as valid as its premises.

Their arguments often come down to «I will use I.I.D. statistics, which I know are only valid for stationary processes, to prove that the climate is warming»...

I doubt that anyone has ever advocated running a country on wind power alone; that would be the only case in which this argument would be valid.

Your argument based on lapse rate is only valid to the top of the middle atmosphere and falls apart in the upper atmosphere where temperature increases with altitude.

Given that Plimer doesn't seem to know what a valid or a sound argument is, or what facts are, and too many of the typical audience don't seem to know either, you can only expect to win these types of encounters by being quick on your feet and cleverer in finding ways to humiliate him.

The argument here would be that this lack of capacity renders a marriage voidable only, with the upshot that it can only be challenged by one of the parties and is valid until successfully challenged by an annulment proceeding.