Sentences with phrase «presented as its arguments»

Not exact matches

As it turned out, they needed us to reframe the argument for conserving wetlands and present a business perspective.

They then conducted a series of experiments that measured how open to being wrong the volunteers were and how it affected their estimation of people with opposing views, as well as how accurately they'd understood the arguments they'd been presented with.

Research has shown that after having people actively present persuasive arguments as part of role play, they tend to express positive views that support that argument.

Then there's what I see as a major conceptual flaw in the opposing arguments I heard today: Fed policy is presented as all costs, no benefits.

And as Exhibit A in this argument I want to present a piece posted over at Policy Options last week.

That argument simply does not hold water as the under - funded amount, $ 2.6 billion, represents the present value of all future obligations less the value of the assets EK's dedicates to the pension obligations.

As one private equity investor points out, protecting under - performing sectors might have been wise in deflationary times (to keep unemployment from ballooning) though as reflation returns the need for productivity to restrain costs could present an argument for reform in the worst - performing sectorAs one private equity investor points out, protecting under - performing sectors might have been wise in deflationary times (to keep unemployment from ballooning) though as reflation returns the need for productivity to restrain costs could present an argument for reform in the worst - performing sectoras reflation returns the need for productivity to restrain costs could present an argument for reform in the worst - performing sectors.

The argument you have just presented is known as Pascal's Wager and it is a thoroughly laughable argument to anyone with a brain.

The analysis of these texts will be much shorter than the analysis of the flood in Genesis 6 — 8 because explaining all the texts in detail would simply mean that many of the same arguments and ideas presented as an explanation for one text would simply be repeated in an explanation for a different text.

The book does not really present «the voice of first millennium Christianity» or make much of an argument toward «restoring the great tradition» (as the subtitle suggests it might).

The present essay is written in two tracks: the central argument, which appears as the text, and the Scholarly discussion, especially as regards issues pertinent to the Annecy meeting, which appears as the endnotes.

I read two articles last year (which I didn't document, like you, thinking it was out of the question) about pedophiles making the exact same argument as the present day argument that homosexuals have taken from the cause of the Black people; «they were born that way.»

Greeley dedicates the present book to Tracy, offering it as sociological support for Tracy's argument.

If sociologists have tended to center on the foregoing argument and to single out work as the basis of their assessment of our present inability to play authentically, theologians and philosophers have tended to: focus upon a second area: America's distorted value structure that has accepted as true the «mindscape» of technology 48 This is Theodore Roszak's phrase, and his discussion can perhaps serve as a helpful starting point.

The question is presented as part of a larger discussion on the nature of philosophical and imperial authority, yet it is clear that the imperial part of the argument is not necessary to its main thrust, as a result standing out all the more.

Concerning the Eutheyphro's dilemma argument you are attempting to use, as I have said in the past, I don't support either option as normally presented in the prongs.

This elaboration consists in the end in presenting the five arguments as five aspects of a single argument that Thomists find implicit but unclearly expressed in all of them.

You have yet to directly respond to the specific points I've made at least three times now, i.e.: 1) the immutable good nature argument is simply unsupported definitional fiat (god can be equally described as malevolent or apathetic with equal support); 2) the immutable good nature argument presents a source of morality beyond god's direct control placing the argument in the god says so because it is good prong of the dilemma; and 3) the argument suggests god is not omnipotent because god is constrained to only a limited set of potential behaviors.

Though this schema remains, in much reduced form, in the present volume, Hopewell found the central image, the body, unsatisfactory as a conveyance for his essentially structuralist arguments about congregational narrative.

your role now as atheist, is to be the opposing argumenter for the modern day change process or evolution of the present religion from monotheism which you have shown in your arguments to be flawed so that the future faithfuls will shift to the ultra modern faith called PANTHROTHEISM - the synthesis of theistic monotheism vs.humanistic atheism.I suggest to you to be more aggressive and conscise in your arguments, God needs you

I am sympathetic to the common - sense argument that the book presents — especially as it is remarkably well documented and proceeds with a lawyer's precision.

Her argument against this position, as best I can discern and summarize it, is that each new divine occasion would in turn be irresistibly objectified or «superjected» (she uses this as a verb) back into the world, which would «bind the present irrevocably to the past, to sacrifice spontaneity and autonomy at the altar of necessity» (p. 164).

Shalom's argument against the former relies on Grice's notion of «present total temporary states,» Shalom totally includes memory as an element in a «present total temporary state» and within this context charges that «what is called «memory» necessarily ceases to possess the property of «pastness» which is associated with memory» and required by Hartshorne's theory.

And a convincing argument can be made that, for serious Christians and Jews, a truly adequate education is education in the fullness of truth presented as the truth.

My argument has presented an analysis of the extensive continuum which clearly makes it true to say that the extensive continuum, as just that set of actual relations among actual occasions which makes the very conception of the continuum as real potentiality intelligible, is indeed actually increased in extent by the concrescence of new occasions.

As a literary endeavor, Gideon's Torch will likely receive short shrift, but the argument presented in the form of a novel deserves careful attention and should prompt sobering discussions about the kind of nation we are and could become.

Powers doesn't make a case for either side of this argument; he merely presents the situation as an example of the compromise the church may have to make.

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.

Although I shall not spell out the argument here, I think that there is an implicit contradiction in holding that we depend on God, who timelessly knows all our acts, past or future as they may be for us now, and yet our present reality does not necessitate our future acts.

Despite my own dissatisfaction with these arguments, it is only right that I should present them as sympathetically as possible.

«39 Since few people read Lowe's entire 1949 article in which the details of his argument are really presented, I will select a few of the key contrasts Lowe reprinted in Understanding Whitehead, which contains an abridgement of the 1949 article, in an effort to show that Gunter has really answered them already rendering Whitehead not so much Bergson's mathematical alter ego, 40 as something more approaching his philosophical blood brother 41 According to Lowe, however, «it is fatal to the understanding of Whitehead's constructive metaphysical effort to define it in Bergsonian terms.

Part of the answer is that these ancient events are moments in a living process which includes also the existence of the church at the present day; and another part is that, as Christians believe, in these events of ancient time God was at work among men, and it is from his action in history rather than from abstract arguments that we learn what God is like, and what are the principles on which he deals with men, now as always.

Here Dowsing pulls few punches, presenting well the «children as gift», not burden or right, argument and is very clear on the immorality of separating the unitive and the procreative.

I accept the results of this argument and grant that eternal objects are present in the first phase of concrescence as realized determinant [s]» (PR 239 / 366) of the actual entities that are being prehended by the new actual entity.

He presents each element of the global argument as a mutually exclusive but logically exhaustive set of options.

Present a real argument and show just how it is as you say.

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.

Cobb's is an argument for how we might understand God to be present within us without displacing any aspect of our humanity or freedom and independence as self - determining subjects.

Corrington documented the way the female has been excluded from the personae of the deity in Christianity, detailing the numerous arguments that present the female nature as flawed and limited.

[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as «an evidence - based scientific theory about life's origins» rather than «a religious - based idea».

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.

If later selves have content in them that resembles the content in earlier selves, then by an argument made familiar by Bertrand Russell, this resemblance would seem to require grounding in a monadic or dyadic universal which is a multiply exemplifiable entity in each, perhaps the relation of resemblance itself.4 In order to be veridical, my present memory of a past experience must have identical qualities instanced in it as were instanced in the past experience when it was present.

One may indeed be entirely without them; probably more than one of you here present is without them in any marked degree; but if you do have them, and have them at all strongly, the probability is that you can not help regarding them as genuine perceptions of truth, as revelations of a kind of reality which no adverse argument, however unanswerable by you in words, can expel from your belief.

Infidelity — same as above, but a bit more interesting, given the arguments presented.

I have not had to appeal to that oldest and best argument for the institution of academic tenure, the unqualified freedom of a scholar to move as his or her research and thinking lead, without being bound by past assumptions or present colleagues.

If there's «logic» involved, as you say, would you mind presenting the argument you're referring to?

So it is natural for me to assume that something presented as, in his present words, a «version of the process argument» would apply to me.

As Bauer made his argument, it was obvious that he was speaking directly to the reporters present.

In this section I will present an argument which may be outlined as follows.

Believers, whether of local cult or widespread religion can always find a way to define their claims just outside the argument presented, as b4bigbang demonstrates, here.