Sentences with phrase «simple logic of»

People yawn when Buffett talks about indexing and «buy and hold», but I'm convinced that the simple logic of value investing, long - term thinking, and patience can go a long way toward trying to produce great investment results over time.

The concept revolves around a simple logic of reviewing the best of herpes dating sites for you with genuine and authentic reviewing mechanism and help you find that single person who will change your entire world and make your problems look really small and trivial.

The bafflingly simple logic of the situation mocks the overwhelming importance of the La Liga title yet it proves stunningly elementary.

«The simple logic of [the biblical] «breasts that do not give suck» [considered as a privation] can only be escaped by the most elaborate forms of cultural learning.

But even in the more conventional worlds of quantum mechanics and relativity, let alone cosmology and string theory, what we think of as «the simple logic of cause and effect» goes pretty much right out the window.

«the simple logic of cause and effect»... I wonder how many people never saw the wool being pulled over their eyes when they read that one.

Confirmation bias is one problem, the other is absolutely lying about several scientific facts: «If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent — separate and apart from the effect — that caused it.»

«by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent — separate and apart from the effect — that caused it»....

«If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent»

Therefore, by that simple logic of cause and effect, there could be no cause of a universe that properly includes time.

This article's assertions fell apart with «If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent — separate and apart from the effect — that caused it.»

Then she claims some unspecified «simple logic of cause and effect» (talk about a hand - waving argument), wherein an effect must have a cause, but a first cause can just be, and must logically be the God of the book of Genesis.

Perhaps the most interesting part is where she claims that «by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent — separate and apart from the effect — that caused it.»

by the simple logic of cause and effect..»

Any simple logic of cause and effect (the author employs much hand - waving with that phrase alone) would have cause being prior to effect.

Not exact matches

Thus, based on a simple logic, one might also surmise that Friedman himself would be critical of the Fed right now.

That sounds like simple and sound business logic, but according to Rob Marke, co-author of The Ultimate Question 2.0: How Net Promoter Companies Thrive in a Customer - Driven World, if you're just aggregating customers» feedback you may be doing them a disservice.

Get repeatable tasks out of the way with workflows: a simple automation system based on if / then logic.

The concept of passive investing is simple, efficient and grounded in logic.

«How naïve all of my previous investing suddenly seemed compared with the simple but incontrovertible logic of value investing.

----- It's only by completely supressing simple logic, that you believe you KNOW the command of God.

There are often a lot of simple reasons rules existed in the older works if you look at them with logic and consider the populace and area they were enacted at the time.

My simple reaction to logic in my own scientific processes is that order, as it exists for those of us on the earth, most probably did not accidentally occur.

Like all science, of course, it is falsifiable — but no one has ever proven it wrong, and no one has ever come up with a better theory that explains so much of the natural world using one simple concept, testable using logic and experiment.

Apparently, most of the time, simple logic wins through and you lose another nutter back over to the side of sanity.

are people so simple they crave the misguided beliefs of others to feel better about themselves or are we triing to understand the lunacy of our citizens to believe something as pathic as a 3000 year old IDEA in order to act properly when voting in those who will run this country for the next 4 years a.k.a. voting in one who using rational thinking and logic to make choices!

In their brief manifesto, DeYoung and Kluck counter the arguments of the emergent movement with the word of God and simple logic.

It is very simple — you apply the same logic to every other god like Allah etc but refuse to apply the same logic to yours... which in turn makes you an atheist towards Allah... but since you make a exception for Jesus (I should also tell you to read some of Prof Bart Erhman — leading biblical scholar) this already makes your stance contradictory.

It should not be instruments of the simple profit maximization and the logic of the survival of the mightiest.

It's simple logic, once someone get's past the veil of their religious beliefs.

---- I do constantly repeat this, because it's an important piece of simple logic that you (or any theist) have no rational answer for.

In this chapter, at any rate, I have argued that reductionist methods contradict the most basic elements of simple logic.

But in pure logic it is not true that there is sheer contradiction between the joint admission of divine perfection of goodness and divine perfection of power, on the one hand, and the fact of real evil on the other, for the simple reason that the greatest possible power (which by definition is «perfect» power) may not be the same as «all the power that exists united into one individual power.»

For all of your so - called «logic», which you seem inordinately proud of, it's flabbergasting to see that you can not grasp this simple idea.

How do you not get this simple, obvious rule of logic?

I shall argue here that though the temptation to reduce life and mind to «matter» is quite understandable today given the amazing advances of molecular biology and brain science, it is, nevertheless, a temptation that must be avoided in the name of simple logic.

The only other possibility is that you are completely incapable of even simple logic, or likely both.

Simple logic hardly applies to quantum mechanics or the kinds of math involved in deducing gravity waves.

Almost every believer I have ever talked to wants to use the logic of complex creations requiring a creator but fail to grasp the simple and unavoidable flaw in that logic which is that the super complex entlty it would take to design and build the universe would then by its own complexity require a more complex entlty to have created it and so on.

A very simple exercise in logic for all of you who are so intent on the need for a «creator» to exist to satiate your wonder is: if you think there needs to be a «creator» for existence, then who created your «creator»?

lets see you must never heard of a if then statement in logic, simple programing does show your lack of computers

atheists are given a very significant role in this dialectical process in the evolution towards Panthrotheism, the belief that God give to humanity the privilige or responsibilty of charting human history.since you are not indoctrinated to specific dogma and doctrines, your open mindedness enables you percieve a deeper understanding of reality, simple logic but more profound scientific knowlege will lead you to God.religious humanism through science is your guiding spirit.

It is the heavenly Wisdom hidden from the wise and given to the simple, the logic of a God who becomes weak so that we might learn to be strong in love.

Maybe in the minds of those that dismiss, or are too dense to comprehend, simple logic because it contradicts their fantasies.

Using simple logic, the burden of proof would have to be upon the religious to prove the existance of the being they are saying exists.

Capitalism is not a system of univocal logic and «a very few simple principles.»

A lot of people on this blog who are Chrisitians want to defend their belief system by simple circular logic.

so your logic doesn't pass simple tests of clarity.

The Relevance of Cosmic Unity In the lead letter of the same issue of Philosophy Now the prominent anti-reductionist philosopher of ethics and of science Mary Midgely makes a point often made by Edward Holloway (though he might not have used the word «choice»), namely that «simple logic surely shows that natural selection can not be the universal explanation because «selection» only makes sense a clearly specified range of choices — an idea to which far too little attention has been given.»

In fact he makes a lot of mistakes of simple logic.