Sentences with phrase «support your claim if»

The police report will include the details of your case and can support your claim if you decide to file one down the road.

Not exact matches

If your down - on - her - luck pal has been sleeping on your sofa for the past year and earned less than $ 4,050 while you've been mostly supporting her (or him), then you may be able to claim the sponger — er, friend — as a dependent and deduct up to $ 4,050 on your federal return, even though the two of you are not related at all.

And, if a case goes to court, we have complete records of our activities to support our claim.

If the current Senate GOP budget — or anything close to it — becomes our fiscal roadmap, no person supporting it will be able to claim to be a fiscal conservative or supporter of fiscal responsibility.

If you see an incorrect item on your credit report and wish to dispute it, you can write to Experian and provide supporting documents to corroborate your claims.

If you have fantastic content on your website, such as an infographic with unique insights, or an in - depth blog post written by an industry expert on your staff, journalists at major media publications may find it helpful to cite those resources to support claims within stories that they're writing.

He told the audience that if they want to do something to help journalists, they should support blog TechDirt and its founder Mike Masnick, who is being sued by the same lawyer who led Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker over stories TechDirt published about Shiva Ayyadurai, who claims to have invented email.

If it's to compensate for emotional distress well, then, that seems awfully low (and in United credit, not cash as well — it wouldn't even cover United's pet in cabin fee for a pet that isn't claimed to be an emotional support animal).

Bitcoin exchange «Remitano» announced that it doesn't support Bitcoin Gold (BTG) hard fork and said it's customers to withdraw their Bitcoin (BTC) to a wallet that provides control to BTC private keys, if they wish to claim BTG.

And even if somebody claimed that we're going to do this to the Bitcoin protocol the miners and everybody, the participants in the Bitcoin ecosystem, they would have to follow along and support that.

He then goes on to assert that it is simply not true that strength and weakness in gold stocks tells us anything about the future performance of gold, which as anyone with a little bit of experience in trading this sector knows is incorrect, even if he tries to support his claim with presumably carefully cherry - picked statistics.

Some dude claiming to be the son of an unproven god, and others believing that and his resurrection, without any supporting evidence is mythology, if not mental illness.

If you claim that gays choose to gay, then post the citations to peer - reviewed science that supports that contention.

@Noah, That book is ridiculous... He claims the universe is likely younger than 13.7 b.y. and backs it up by claiming that 100 + measurements taken over the past 300 years supports the claim that light does not travel at a constant rate... As if people 300 years ago could measure with the kind of accuracy we can today

If I claim I can fly like superman or run 100 metres in 7.4 seconds and I want people to believe me, then I have to provide evidence to support my claim.

If I recall, and I'm sure I could find a post or two to support my recollection, it's the believers that seem to state they know exactly what a deity is thinking even while claiming that people can't know what a deity is thinking.

It seems to me that the Jews are from Europe not the Middle East, If they can only trace their history back to «the old country» somewhere in Europe how could they claim a land in the middle east and why should we support that?

@Collin: If you could provide any factual information to support your claims, I would love to read them.

If you are referring to the Bible verses the Book of Mormon, consider this, there is a huge avalanche of historical evidence and acrheology that supports the historical claims of the Bible.

Think about how silly that claim really is, all the native Americans decide to become Hindu and then take over a large part of India, what would we look like supporting them even if they produce a book that says their God Vishnu give them that land?

:... still we have a ton of physical evidence that God is real...» One point of view: Most, if not all, Atheists would disagree with this statement and ask for solid scientific evidence to support such a claim.

Consider that a «cop out» if you will, but the evidence to support my assertion is abundant and it is not I who am making extraordinary claims here.

If you try to reconcile this enormous diversity in religions with the claim there is one true god who has always existed you need to come up with theories and rationalizations we both know you can't support with any evidence.

MyMainMan, one other point I'd like to make: If you're going to support Sagan's claim that athiests must presume to have much more knowledge than the rest of us, then the exact same must apply to Theists (those who believe in God).

In fact it's more disgusting if someone claims to represent God and then molests or child, protects those who do, or contines to support the organization which hides this type of behavior.

If Ehrman is right, it would seem that historical studies could never support the validity of miracle claims such as the resurrection.

If I get an email from a Nigerian prince who tells me I can receive $ 1M if I send him $ 10K, and there's no evidence to support this claim, I'm going to move the email to the «trash bin»If I get an email from a Nigerian prince who tells me I can receive $ 1M if I send him $ 10K, and there's no evidence to support this claim, I'm going to move the email to the «trash bin»if I send him $ 10K, and there's no evidence to support this claim, I'm going to move the email to the «trash bin».

If you continue to make statements of fact regarding your beliefs, I will be forced to demand supporting verifiable evidence for your claims.

if we support our unverifiable claims with more unverifiable claims, then the arguement gets to be quite circular....

You can't claim science supports some aspect of Christianity if the results of scientific expirementation can not be trusted.

if anything belief would lead one to question and find facts to support their claim or find that their claim is not supported by anything but the belief in it and then lead one from belief to knowledge of.

Let's first go back to the claim you actually made: that all of these field will obviously, if purused without bias, support your particular worldview.

I find that Whitehead's exposition is question - begging and seriously misleading.4 The exposition is misleading insofar as it suggests that belief in either a specific or generic causal nexus is adequately justified by a subject's experience of CE alone and not ultimately by systematic considerations, particularly those related to prehension.5 If Whitehead's theory of perception was intended to stand alone without support from the rest of his system, as Ford suggests (EWM 181 - 182), then I claim that it is insufficiently justified insofar as a part of it, the theory of CE, is inadequately justified.

Actually back up your claims, or else have the guts to retract them if you can not support them.

At least that must be the conclusion if his claim is to be supported merely by conformation and reproduction, which ultimately involve nothing more than the transmission of character.

If this intent is successfully realized, it will in part lend support to Hartshorne's claim that the dipolar conception of God is more compatible with religious experience than views which conceive God primarily in terms of the category of the absolute, or pure actuality, or being, etc..

If god could cause the entire community (or anyone) to support or appose any actions, then how can Christians claim free will?

We reject it because there is no evidence to support it the way we would reject a claim for a cancer cure if the makers didn't have any research suggesting that their product actually cured cancer.

In the ensuing international backlash against the bill, Lively claimed that he did not support the death penalty for hom.ose.xuality but that if the «offending sections» were modified, the proposed law criminalizing hom.ose.xuality «would be an encouraging step in the right direction.»

To say that all religious communities recognize the right of people not to be tortured, or that all religious communities support the self - determination of indigenous peoples is not very exciting: even if these claims are true (and I suspect that they are not), they bear little relation to any claim that a faithful member of any religious community would recognize as his own.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anywhere in Jesus» own reported words anything to support those two claims.

Most, however, do say that if there is enough evidence to support a certain claim, then that is the current truth about that claim.

Von Campenhausen believes that if the story were simply a legend «it would not have specified three women (who, by Jewish law, were not competent to testify) as the decisive witnesses ’25 and he is supported at this point by H. H. Rex who claimed that «This is in itself a point in favor of the authenticity of the tradition.

But Topher, keep in mind that if God can bend scientific laws as He chooses, there is no point in using ANY science, including science you claim supports the Bible.

So if you claim to be able to support yourself and someone comes and steals your stuff, you should let them have it because reclaiming your stuff would somehow not be supporting yourself?

One side effect of the research I've done in writing the book, is that when somebody presents 10K verses to support their claim, I can write a short reply: «Thank you for providing so much scriptural support that conclusively proves my position, and demonstrates that your position has no basis in scripture», and, if challenged, go through each cited verse, and, using one or more specific techniques / methods of Bible study, show how the cited verse either refutes the position they present, or supports the position I present.

If you have evidence to support your claim in a god then please present it.

But it still all boils down to the bible making the claim that it's God is the head of the man, and man is the head of the woman so if the God of the bible commands the men to attack the infidel's they must obey and the women must support them in their attack.

If we discount appeals that had relevance only when considering the claim that Premise X is meaningless or the claim that Premise X is logically false (i.e., Griffin's appeal to the meaninglessness of «X is a powerless actuality» in the first case and to «the definition of «actual being» in the second case), Griffin's text provides nothing in the way of support for the assertion that the metaphysical principle upon which he is relying is correct.

I am a non Catholic Christian and I wholeheartedly support every American pray to their God, even if he is different from my God because I have no desire to claim my God is better.