Sentences with phrase «validity to do»

It also provides an opportunity to review damages personally so when it comes time to request a credit from the sellers, you will be equipped with the proper understanding and validity to do so.

Not exact matches

Always assess the validity of the advice offered, and don't take advice from people who mean well but are not qualified to give it.

While the «tax hit» argument may have validity, it's of course impossible to determine potential Tribune post-tax, net gain if Tribune doesn't know Broad's price.

PLANADVISER: But, the Intel custom - built funds underperformed peer investments, according to the lawsuit; does that not add validity to the complaint?

In every block, you at random are allowed to choose only five tickets from the pool of live tickets to do voting on the validity of the earlier block.

Further, we do not warrant or make any representations concerning the use, validity, accuracy, completeness, likely results or reliability of any claims, statements or information in this note or otherwise relating to such materials or on any websites linked to this note.

In the name of «a flexible approach tailored to the modern conception of federalism, which allows for some overlapping and favours a spirit of co?operation» (at para 93) and an approach that is consistent with the presumption of validity, Justice Gascon clearly favoured a more deferential and «delicate» approach to the assessment of pith and substance than did the majority.

@Chad — Many «atheists» won't answer believers for the same reason Professor Dawkins doesn't debate creationists... it's a waste of time and it lends implicit validity to their claims.

Just like we don't allow children to drink, to drive, to get married, etc until the age of 16, 18, or 21 depending on culture, we should not be forcing kids to workship a mytholgical god until they are old enough to determine the validity of that myth themselves.

a thing done or something that has actual existance; evidence... something that furnishes proof; proof... something that enduces certainty or establishes validity; supernatural... of or relating to an order beyond the visible order of the universe.

Firstly, telling me thousands of people have faithfully reproduced it over the years does not contribute to the validity of the bible, it just shows the bible has fooled a heck of a lot of people.

@Chuckles «Firstly, telling me thousands of people have faithfully reproduced it over the years does not contribute to the validity of the bible» = > Well that's a crazy statement.

You're right I suppose, the bible doesn't say anything about how it should or shouldn't be taken seriously, I guess only non-fiction both has to show their bonafides in order to prove the validity of the material its presenting and not asking the reader to just go with it, or «have faith it's right»....

There is ample evidence of the Bible's validity you just have to do some research.

Yes I know this will happen because I have been through these arguments time and time again and when I pull out my Bible that people claim to have read and match it to the scientific evidence that points very clearly to the validity and truth of the Bible they shut up and don't want to hear it.

Obviously jesus didn't have the same historical recording devices as I do, however the only thing that we have to go off of that jesus existed was a book of eye - witness accounts designed by a council that specifically was formed to prove the validity of this specific individual.

Fortunately for us, the argument ought not to be about our personal validity, but to the objective claims we make about the truths of scripture and the essential elements that genuine Christian faith has and does contribute to society.

So, do you want you're president to believe in things that his prophets tell him that have no validity in science or education at all?

Smooth asa follow believer in God telling the ateist to simply solve everything has well frankly even less validity the them telling us to have God do it.

i'm fairly certain these specific theological notions are not referred to in the bible, so where do they come from and why should they have any validity?

So the burden on proof is not the atheist to Disprove your claim, the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is a god to demonstrate its validity... unfortunately this has not ever been done, so atheists reject the claim and reserve judgement and belief till evidence surfaces.

But presuming — as I do — the validity of the concept of geologic time, I note that the designation «Anthropocene» unavoidably suggests an exceptional quality to the species homo sapiens, if only in terms of our collective human powers.

While some scientists have expressed opinions about the validity of religious beliefs, I don't know that many, if any, have attempted to prove or disprove religion using the scientific method.

Still amazes me how people are so willing to follow an idea, a religion, a dude telling fairy tales from a stage, rather than the things that they see before them every day, and in doing so, tie everyday natural occurrences into evidence for the validity of their fairy tales.

There is absolutely no validity to what he is doing at all.

(I do not wish to underestimate the significance or validity of some of the carefully done experiments in para-psychology, involving such phenomena as precognition and thought transfer.

Out of interest, what would the answers to those questions have to do with the validity or not of evolution?

He moved beyond a recognition of the validity of much of Bultmann's position, to argue that since something can be known about the historical Jesus, we must concern ourselves with working it Out, if we do not wish ultimately to find ourselves committed to a mythological Lord.

Ricky boy, I'm not here to fluff my science knowledge feathers as you darwinists do, hoping to prove validity of your evolution - religion, nor do I care to be «scientifically correct», although I could, if I wanted to....

I don't think the metaphysical Jesus that Paul claims to have encountered (in a vision) was real, or that he was the same Jesus known as Yeshua the Nazorean, and I don't think that there is any validity to the theology that Christians believe about Jesus, because those beliefs start with Paul and smack of the Gentile theology of that era.

Just as the number of believers in Allah does not add to the validity of the Allah claim, the number of people, past and present, who believe humanity is evil, does not make it so.

If one isn't willing to grant as much validity to another faith as they do their own, however they can appreciate, learn from, and respect that faith... is there a problem with that?

I can agree that there is validity in the revelation presented in other religions, philosophies, etc... and that admitting that there is truth somewhere in those revelations does not have to conflict with a belief that Christ was THE revelation.

The thing is the only facts ever established regarding the certified validity of a deity let alone what that deity does is that there is nothing proven that there is a deity AND there is also nothing proving that there is no deity who does not want to be made known but would rather have us development our own faith in said deity.

An association that makes common decisions governing all social action does not honor each individual's right to dissent from the moral validity of any social action unless the association prevents other individuals from violating its governing decisions.

We may also say that the distinguishing mark of a formative prescription is its explicit neutrality to all substantive ones; that is, asserting the former does nor explicitly affirm or deny the moral validity of any prescription whose prescribed action is partisan in some or other moral disagreement.

If God does not mirror the world and thereby unify it, we are left with a fundamental dualism between different levels of being Contingent being would appear to possess its own arena and validity apart from God, making it independent of the Ultimate.

The number of people who believe a given thing does nothing to the validity of the belief.

Our point is not to argue the validity of each story in the bible, but to accept its lesson, on what to do, or what not to repeat!

Validity of the premises has nothing to do with valid reasoning, buddy.

The leading question in every course dealing with any subject matter must be this: How does this subject matter (be it «logic, or Mexican - American history, or the sociology of religion») contribute to assessing the validity of Christian witness?

The validity of the premise has nothing to do with the validity of the reasoning!

The criteria of logical validity doesn't apply to the validity of the premises, only to the reasoning.

The student is helped to acquire the aptitudes needed in order to do history or philosophy or a social science as aptitudes needed to inquire critically into the validity of Christian witness.

Your assertions give nothing to the validity of it, and does no good to anyone actually looking for the truth.

another one them tried to make a case for evolution using principles of adaptation and then claimed that even though it did not fit into the evolutionary timescale it was the methods used that proved the validity of the experiment.

using the verses from bible to verify the validity of bible and thus proving it as word of god doesn't work..

Theo God is seen in the things that are made, but of course you will have to state your case that Vishnu, Pan Gu or any of the other creation myths does not have as much validity as you myth.

If it does not expect blind providence to save man through technical and material change, neither does it trust to a «free - ranging human intellect which contrives systems of absolute validity.»

If that was the case, you have to denounce the validity of prayer every time it doesn't work.