Sentences with phrase «presented proof so»

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

Not exact matches

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.

And so the evidence that Christians continue to present as «proof» of their god is either the earliest fragments of these same man - written stories (proving nothing other than that someone wrote the stories down!)

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 were to present a proof of the existence of God you'd be the first to do so.

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.

Anyone can predict bad things will happen, and be almost certain to be right at some time in the future, since so much stuff happens.Either present a fulfilled prophecy that had exact dates in it, with events that later did happen on those dates, or show some integrity by retracting any claims of «proof» of prophecy that you might be making.

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.

Santa used to come to our house and leave presents, so I had proof.

Just as all scientists must live with the ever - present possibility of experimental error, so too mathematicians, like our judicial system, may sometimes have to settle not for absolute proof but rather proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Needless to say that's a very serious criticism of a fellow scientist, requiring a much greater burden of proof than anything he's presented so far.

On full climate sensitivity I have stated repeatedly that the empirical evidence is not strong, but every paper that is not technically so badly wrong that the results can be dismissed and that uses some empirical observations to estimate which values are unlikely presents empirical evidence on climate sensitivity — far from proof but evidence.

Politicians should read it to understand that costly economic decisions to fight global warming are unnecessary, and irresponsible, given the unreliability of the so called «scientific» data and proof presented by the UN

Defamation is complicated of course, and UK laws are especially interesting, but: 1) We all know about the dangers of out - of - context emails... but Deming never presented any proof it was Overpeck, and would not say so in his statement to Congress.

Just as a mathematician presents his proof or a physicist his equations for examination and verification, so should climate scientist code be presented for same.

Of course, that does not stand as proof that all he writes is denialist nonsense, but it does explain why he he begins his piece writing so insistently on the subject of the Little Ice Age (a subject that is not as well - understood as Ferrara makes out) and why much of what he does present on the Little Ice Age are unsubstantiated assertions and plain wrong.

In order to do so, the plaintiff must present proof of causation both in terms of actual, factual causation and with regard to «proximate,» or legal, causation.

I present proof that the suspected murder weapon was purchased after Bob disappeared and a better explanation for why it looked so suspicious, etc..

Our Preszler Law lawyers know the importance of presenting solid evidence in these cases, so investigation and gathering the necessary proof are key aspects of our representation in slip or trip and fall cases.

At trial, the order of evidence, witnesses and proof is usually presented in chronological fashion so as not to confuse the jury.