You said «Not sure why the 3 of you are so intent on
proving something false if it does not exist.»
I'll let my other fellow posters speak for themselves here, but I am not «intent» on
proving something false here.
Not sure why the 3 of you are so intent on
proving something false if it does not exist.
Not exact matches
There's no reward for taking on
something that has significance bordering on religious for some... even if it
proves to be a bit of a «
false god.»
This is the fallacy of assuming
something is true simply because it hasn't been
proven false.
Mormonism asks you to believe in
something that has been
proven false.
It is only possible to
prove an existential positive (i.e.
something does exist) or to show that an universal qualification is
false (by way of counter example)
Though some texts are distorted to try to
prove the idea of an immortal soul, they are in fact just that, distorted to say
something that they don't say because they are read with the
false lens of this pagan concept.
The motifs may
prove to be too specific, however, for sensing the gestalt of the folk tale, and the reader may tire of following
false leads before finding
something that parallels the value pattern of the congregation.
Voice of Reason, if you claim to be a person of reason and science, you must remember that the scientific method requires that you must
prove that
something is
false or does not exist in order to make the claim that it is indeed
false or does not exist.
Of course it doesn't
prove that believers aren't in fact sensing
something out there but it clear demonstrates that such signals can be
false and internal.
Of course, it
proved to be
something of a
false dawn.
something of which Kristol knows not...
false pretext for war... callous disregard for war victims... convenient lies to
prove any political point... perhaps only Bernie Madoff has led a more delusional existence...
I thought that the unevenness was
something that you just need to accept when seeing a new one, but SOUTHBOUND has
proven that surrender to be completely
false.
My bigger concern is if you write
something that is discovered to be
false - My understanding is if you were sued, you would have to
prove that you published your article in good faith, believing everything you said was true.