Sentences with phrase «other arguments which»

In addition to these statutes which could govern the ownership and distribution of property, there are other arguments which parties could make if the statutes didn't apply for some reason.

Not exact matches

«Any argument they make for keeping that in would result in the same kinds of legal challenges presented by Section 3 (c), which poses the question of, «Why have people from these countries been deemed more dangerous than others?»»

It's intellectually honest to look at the other side of any argument but especially one in which you have strong views.

For anyone interested, I summarized some of his arguments in a September 16, 2012, blog entry, in which among other things I quoted the CEO of Fortescue as saying:

On one hand, Norway's past eight years, in which it had both a trade account surplus and a governmental fiscal surplus would seem to support his argument; yet there are too many other examples which do not confirm this theory.

There's no question that investors have become nearly frantic in their verbal arguments about the permanence of elevated profit margins (which is something that Benjamin Graham observed at other market peaks, and warned against decades ago).

You bring up a good argument for why I would believe that as opposed to believing I had been visited by any other god (which I don't believe exist.)

... well the same logic applys to god... i enjoy dropping these logic bombs on people and see how they react and hope that maybe that logic bomb will eventually set up a chain reaction in their consciousness... or maybe I am an egotistical f c k who just likes to have an unassaiable argument which with to beat others over the head with... maybe I am wrong to do so because the Human Condition is so cold and bleak in its finality that people need the cushion of god to go on with their everyday lives.

Obviously, so the argument goes, if we want to cut teenage pregnancies and abortions we must have access to sexual health services — in other words, teenagers are less likely to get pregnant if they are using contraception; failing contraception, then we should give them access to the morning - after pill, which may be seen as preferable to a twelve - year - old getting pregnant.

Some of these arguments are no doubt instances in which two thinkers are seeking to describe one and the same feature of reality, and in which, if one is correct, the other must be wrong.

His argument seems to hinge on the idea that capital punishment is so extreme and so different from all other punishments that it necessarily falls in the category of «high justice»» an attempt to «balance the cosmic books»» an authority which the state can not rightly wield.

So much for Gopnik's argument that Chesterton's «national spirit» and «extreme localism» led him to his supposed anti-Semitism: they were, in fact, precisely what gave him his respect for other nations and other cultures, including that of the Jews, to which the world owed its knowledge of God, «as narrow as the universe».

One argument which has been attempted against its historicity has been that there are ancient accounts of floods to be found among other peoples; however, rather than discounting the reality of the Flood I view this as corroborative.

The way in which it might be part of «process hermeneutics» in a derivative sense of the term, can be shown by considering how these two sorts of argument might be related to each other.

But a compelling philosophical argument can be made for the view that gay is not good, which means that it should be considered a disease in the same way as all the other sexual disorders in the DSM.

I just don't see a good, solid reason for it's legalization other than «It's no worse than cigarettes and alcohol» which is really a sad argument.

has about it something of a demand for a pedigree, which might at least lend some credibility to the claims Christ makes for himself; for want of which, Pilate can do little other than pronounce his truth: «I have power to crucify thee» (which, to be fair, would under most circumstances be an incontrovertible argument).

To commit one's time and energies, and his best interpretations and arguments, to decision in which others share must inevitably be an anxiety - inducing business unless one has a bit of a psychological free - swing about him.

@Freya, You actually have an earlier premise then which all other points of your argument rest on: 1) The bible is true.

i just know i use these same arguments A LOT — because a lot of atheists don't seem to want to read other atheists... which makes me wonder if they really know what they believe.

Faced with conflicting interpretations based on religious premises, national leaders can readily turn to other arguments on which there is greater consensus.

@godfreenow In logic, an argument is made when a claim is supported by a set of premises, which both support the other one.

One of Cobb's arguments is that regional inclusion is a fruitful concept for gaining understanding of the relationship between the regnant society of personally ordered occasions that answers to the concept of a «soul» in the Whiteheadian philosophy and the other occasions in the brain which support that regnant society.

At the end of the day I want us, no matter which way the argument may go, to be able to consider each other family still.

Indeed, to the best of my knowledge Hartshorne does not explicitly link his position on creation with his position on relativity, contingency, and potentiality, as he does link the latter with his position on temporality.13 On the other hand, he does present other arguments against the traditional position, none of which seem tome to have any substance.

@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

Christians must not claim that Christian revelation makes Christianity superior to other religions, she believes: «What Christianity has going for it is its substantive proposal of a way of life — a way of life over which Christians argue in the effort to witness to and be disciples of Christ, and with which they enter into argument with others.»

His whole argument, particularly in the last portion of the book, is that they are priests after Christ, with priestly duties to perform, some of which are performed out in the world, and others of which are performed in the assembly of believers, gathered before God's throne on the heavenly Zion — and how dare anyone forsake priestly service on the heavenly Zion in favor of letting a Levitical priest do it for you on the earthly Zion!

But the concern for this claim rather than some other is determined by a Christian perspective, and the persuasiveness of the arguments which convince me that it has some measure of validity depends in part on that perspective.

I could see some of their arguments if there were mentions of Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, or any other religious figure which endorses one religion over another but there is not.

It follows that any arguments which undermine this understanding, whether based upon the pastoral interests of the Council or any other factor, are specious.

If Chad and others argue that naturalistic evolution must be dismissed because we don't know exactly what happened with gene mutation and transmission frequencies during particular periods of rapid change, then how can we accept a replacement argument in which we don't even know what happens at all?

If you want to go by the whole roots in other beliefs argument one could also argue that protestantism paved the way for such movements as the second great awakening in which Joseph Smith was caught up in.

Then the article turns to theology, with the argument that warfare resembles other social ills (e.g., «suffering, poverty, and disease») which have released forces both good and evil.

Hartshorne evidently recognizes the force of this reasoning because the other line of argument by which he at least appears to support his claim for a distinct class of theological analogies is to appeal to just such a direct experience of God.

I know (all too well) the vigorous (sometimes vicious) arguments that weave a complex scaffold of doctrine and interpretation in which anything other than a literal reading brings the whole thing crashing down, like a teetering Jenga tower when one slim block is moved.

The fallacy in this argument stems from two hidden premises which have become so much part and parcel of Christian tradition that they are usually assumed at the outset, and remain unexamined even by those who are, in other ways, trying to examine the Gospel evidence on historical grounds.

In addition to the argument from the wonders and the apparent intelligence of the world, and from the course of human history, past and future, as he believed it might he calculated, Second Isaiah had one other consideration which is presented with such brevity that there is danger of reading into it perhaps more than he meant.

Meanwhile let me say that I hope that the present volume may be followed by another, if I am spared to write it, in which not only Professor Royce's arguments, but others for monistic absolutism shall be considered with all the technical fullness which their great importance calls for.

In other words, J. Denny Weaver's approach in this book is that he read a bunch of books on the atonement, and then wrote 5 - 10 pages summarizing the views and arguments of each book, which are then all compiled into this book on the atonement.

this is an old argument which delusional theists have lost already, so i don't intend to expound on it further other than to point out once more — you're wrong.

Such a world rests upon the evidence of similarity, the correspondence of certain images and patterns with others, and the argument that such consonance implies a common form or structure in which similar objects participate.

The death of the Prophet [may God grant him Peace] hailed a new era in which Muslims would have to develop an open - ended system of interpretation for issues and precedents for which the Qur «an and Sunnah did not have explicit experience with!The other aspect of your argument is that you compact all unbelievers [kafiruwn] into the same box.

Furthermore, even the identification of the putative content of experience proves to be normed by whatever hermeneutical analysis is employed, for one can only imagine, much less recognize as present, what one can come to identify somehow.16 Finally, some hermeneutical analysis is also presupposed by and, therefore, normative of any argument from experience, whether of the individual or the communal type, since it is only experience as interpretable in terms of some description or other to which one can ever appeal either for the mutual corroboration of such descriptions or for their illustration of a theistic interpretation.

Reichenbach argues that since this argument «is identical in form to that which argues by analogy from the existence of my mind to that of other minds, it is fraught with all the same problems which plague the latter» (EGG 194 - 95).

Not a zero - sum game, in which one person sacrifices his or her career, friends, creativity or deepest needs so that the other can be the hero, or the star, or never lose the argument.

The patristic and medieval «metaphysics of participation» (in which God is seen as the Being whose essence is to exist, rather than as one being among others) undergirds a theology and politics of communion that, George argues, late - medieval theology abandoned the overall argument in The Difference God Makes is a strong one.

I can appreciate that you want to teach them to be able to defend the faith in which you'll bring them up, but the only way to have a proper defence is to thoroughly understand the other side of the argument.

His argument centers on the following proposition which he refers to as «Premise X»: «It is possible for one actual being's condition to be completely determined by a being or beings other than itself» (GPE 264).

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.»