Sentences with phrase «valid argument in»

There is enough valid argument in the article to demolish CAGW many times over.

No matter how you slice it, there is no valid argument in this framework as to why we should cut CO2 emissions.

> The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90 % prefer a certain brand of product over another.

The industry classifies disability insurance as supplemental health insurance — so you can make a valid argument in favor of this deduction.

I don't consider that a valid argument in regards to a scientific paper which gives you the percentages they used to define the diet.

Niether is a valid argument in the modern world.

Steve, this «it's just a theory, not a fact» argument is not a valid argument in the scientific world.

And even if there are valid arguments in support of churches with a predominant ethnic group, still the wider Christian community often falters when it comes to demonstrating unity in Christ.

There are no valid arguments in his statement only opinion.

The biggest takeaway that I hope people get from this blog post is that they are not alone in their concerns about medication use, but that there are extremely valid arguments in favor of it.

Not exact matches

Now, in the past, some of these arguments might have been valid.

I don't know why people, in attempting to provide a refutation of an argument, consistently rebut arguments by simply mentioning their nationality, as if being of a certain nationality designates one as an expert in all matters concerning that nation and serves as sufficient qualification to denounce a valid opposition viewpoint.

In fact, a valid argument could be made in both directionIn fact, a valid argument could be made in both directionin both directions.

Sure, there's an argument that these ratings are nonsense and — in our eyes — the argument is somewhat valid.

When some asshat like you, just sayin, HeavenSent, Bob, etc. make blanket statements and refuse to respond to corrections, criticisms, or valid points refuting those statements, then there is no point in bringing up any kind of argument.

To go along with this, you have to believe three things, all controversial: (1) that authenticity is a valid idea; (2) that you can argue in reason about ideals and about the conformity of practices to these ideals; and (3) that these arguments can make a difference.

The flaw in your thinking is that your argument is only valid when both people share the same belief system, which is not the case here.

The arguments presented by the creation institute in this regard are valid but they never went about proving their claim.

Now this would be a valid argument if one understood the self in terms of individual autonomy, so that one's understanding of one's self as subject would be quite distinct from ones understanding of the cosmic or historical situation one confronted as object.

I will agree that an argument from majority is not always valid, but in this case I think it would be analogous to the fact that there is a small percentage of individuals who don't believe we went to the moon.

From this perspective we can see clearly what is valid in Thomas» arguments.

IN all the arguments for and against abortion, the ONLY valid statement made is one of CHOICE.

(If the ontological argument were shown to be valid, the may be true» would in both cases imply «is true.»)

I understand the argument is straightforward, but it is: 1) based in definitional fiat (there is equally valid evidence to suggest that god is malevolent or simply apathetic); 2) actually embraces the god says so because it is good prong of the dilemma; and 3) attempts to constrain god by limiting god's possible range of choice.

The traditional churches do not always seem to realize that the premises for sensible argument, which are basic to themselves, are probably neither valid nor comprehensible in the world outside the Church.

The argument that life begins at conception is absurd in that what should be said is parasitic life begins at conception, actual human life only becomes a valid argument when the fetus is able to live outside the womb, prior to that the life is basically in the hands of the host — mother.

«Lewis wrote in a time when, among the educated British public if not among their professional philosophers, there was considerably more agreement than there is now about what constitutes a valid and rational argument for a given case.»

Please note that this is the Christian way is not a valid argument due to this country being secular and composed of people of all faiths, creeds and even of those that choose not to believe in deities.

ddeevviinn, you said; «It is in this land of reality that 90 % (in actuality a little less, but for sake of argument we'll use this figure) of the population has determined that the Judeo - Christian God revealed in the biblical literature is valid.»

Mr. Blair's point is that such arguments should be allowed and encouraged in the public sphere as valid means of making moral arguments.

Hartshorne notoriously has spent much time and energy in advancing what he regards as valid forms of the ontological argument.

I recognize that, for Apel, the universal criterion of valid substantive prescriptions is simply that they can be redeemed by argument or in moral discourse.

Valid a priori arguments, indeed, may be held only to «impoverish» experience in the sense that they show the intrinsic unsatisfactoriness of certain ways of understanding reality and bring to light the structures involved in any understanding of it which presupposes and is consistent with the principle of rationality.

It is in this land of reality that 90 % (in actuality a little less, but for sake of argument we'll use this figure) of the population has determined that the Judeo - Christian God revealed in the biblical literature is valid.

You would need to admit that if your argument is valid and that in order to reject belief in something, we would need to be omniscient, than you'd have to admit that they should also believe in Thor because to NOT believe would mean that YOU are omniscient and see that Thor is not in that set of knowledge you possess.

@NAH, can rebut each of Colin's points in a reasonable manner, specifically let me call out two (both sort of related)-- the Christianity refers to only 600 years of history, and only refers to a small geography (not even the entire earth)-- why «leap of faith» argument is valid for Christianity and not for other independent faiths, which have many contradictory beliefs compared to Christianity, and if they are equally valid, how can they all be equally valid

If this argument is valid, it shows that mathematics is rooted in bodily life and that the necessity in mathematical reasoning is rooted in man's spatiotemporal existence.

In this paper I shall (1) briefly set forth this argument; (2) show that the argument, if it is valid, is valid only for a Hartshornean God; (3) argue that, since Hartshorne's God does require that at least something (anything will do) contingent exists, the «new» ontological argument fails even for Hartshorne's God, because it is logically possible that there should be nothing at all, total non-being.

Rhology: I consider, when in a debate, that saying someone is being dishonest in their argument is a valid thing to say.

In the end his claim that no religious scientist can ever provide a valid argument for their position sounds remarkably like a blind act of faith...

In fact, the crunching of numbers to make an argument appear more valid is done by pretty much everyone on this planet.

Tom Tom makes too many as sumptions about others.No wonder it can't make a valid argument and why does it have to think that it is only one that lives in a good neighborhood and that everyone else lives in a trailor?

That some Christian's are still attempting to use it as a valid argument either speaks to their still not being aware of things outside of their limited view, or to their willingness to misrepresent the situation in their favor.

Let us reconsider this argument in face of the claim that such postulates as the Keynesian principle of limitation of independent variety constitute adequate grounding for «valid inductive inference».

Even if you want to lay to one side the very valid concerns about the porn industry's links with human trafficking, or the connections between hard - core pornography use and sexual violence, there's a strong argument that this is, in fact, a public health issue.

I know you must be pretty proud of yourself by sounding like your making a valid scientific argument for an all knowing fairy in the sky, but your not.

I can definitely see why soo many people are confused as to what sin actually means in the bible... because they are not willing to read the book to make an argument valid enough

If you are going to make a valid argument against Wenger you should learn to ground your argument in facts.

There are valid arguments for and against running Silver Spoon (who, unlike Regret, would have to carry 121 pounds against the colts» 126 pounds) in the Derby, and Whitney intends to weigh all of them with the meticulous care of a Cape Canaveral supervisor before he orders the button pushed.

In a season where the title is decided over 38 matches, this is a very valid argument.