Sentences with phrase «which makes his argument»

Yes, they need to be taught to believe in gods, but babies don't have the ability to determine that gods are, or aren't real either, which make that argument a whole lot less compelling than the people who like to use it would like.

In essence, the rhetorical weight of his argument seems to assume God's existence in the first place, which makes the argument fundamentally circular in nature.

Love Wins was a 2011 book by Emergent leader Rob Bell, in which he makes an argument for a form of universalism.

Film historian Stephen Thrower offers a brief introduction for each film, in which he makes an argument for each film's complexity and placement within the»70s horror canon.

which makes the argument comparing the pixel count between Ryse and KZ invalid since it's still 1920 x 1080 at more of a resolution of 1080i instead of p (that and the 960 is the horizontal pixel dimension, not the vertical one).

Not exact matches

So while there are certainly arguments to be made in favor of a rules - based Fed over the pure discretion of the current PhD standard, such reform should not be viewed as a solution to the real issue, which is a central bank having a monopoly on money at all.

There's a very strong argument to be made to the effect that the key way in which lawyers serve society — their key social responsibility — is by serving their clients well.

While this may be true for rarer metals, it is tough to make this argument in regards to aluminum and steel, which are plentiful in supply.

«Any argument they make for keeping that in would result in the same kinds of legal challenges presented by Section 3 (c), which poses the question of, «Why have people from these countries been deemed more dangerous than others?»»

The ultimate disproof lies in the hidden circularity of the Finance professor's argument, which we can illuminate by contemplating the process by which something is made illegal.

There's an argument to be made, and has been made for years, that Apple needs to transition iTunes — which makes money via individual transactions — to a subscription model, since that's what consumers are increasingly preferring.

Let's review the arguments of the two sides and see which make more sense.

There can be no realistic argument not to make adjustments just because it would strain the Mexico economy (which is much in need of reform, why do auto workers only make $ 5 / day?).

Asked which province — B.C., which wants to delay the project for environmental reasons, or Alberta, which wants to avoid delays for economic reasons — is making the more compelling argument, Canadians are evenly split, with 50 per cent saying each province's government is more persuasive

Here is a post from Libertarian News that begins, «I recently got into an argument over on the Reddit Bitcoin boards where I held the position that fractional reserve banking with Bitcoins was not possible,» which sounds fun; he recants that view but does make what I think is a very valid point:

If you make assumptions about why demand for loans is slack among small businesses and then treat that as a fact which underpins your whole argument, it makes it difficult to treat this as anything beyond opinion.

This is an argument of chance and it assumes the offeree has no additional information from which to make their decision (which is hardly ever the case).

«You either end up banning the company or you try to make an argument for anti-trust and try and break up the company, which has not really worked out yet,» he said.

Your first stop should be the Canadian government, which has, in cases where there's a good argument, made representation on behalf of Canadian businesses who get caught in this quagmire.

The same argument could be made for why men, especially white men, are superior to women and / or minorities; which clearly is not true.

using your argument we would had civil rights in this country just because goverments make certain practices illegal does tat mean that what the goverrmet s doing is moral and just, The fact s the goverment attempted to use Christaniaity to bolster it claim to power through this we have the start of the Roman Catholic Church one of the most insidious evil organzations on this planet which as doe more to oppose ad kill true follewers of Christ then ay group o this planet.

But as I drove home, I myself became less convinced, not of the immediate soundness of my argument, but of the long - term philosophical adequacy and stability of the legal framework within which I had made it.

@Liz — It seems like the argument you are making is valid but only from the perspective of either creating a high risk of complication / retardation which science has proven when children are born to closely related people, and the «Ick» factor of not wanting to imagine two siblings getting it on.

No Bobcat, my argument is the same as the one made by Texas Shell which you seemed to understand.

In doing so, you are basing your argument upon appealing to the exception rather than the rule which makes for a weak argument in my opinion.

They knew how to make their case to a jury — by creating a framework for the jury through which they will be compelled to agree with the perspective and argument of the lawyer / theologian.

The current trend would make it likely that gays will become fully accepted by the majority of Christians, perhaps within our lifetime, in which case your argument loses ground, right?

I read two articles last year (which I didn't document, like you, thinking it was out of the question) about pedophiles making the exact same argument as the present day argument that homosexuals have taken from the cause of the Black people; «they were born that way.»

Your blatant denial of this verifiable evidence proves that either you do not know that this is fact, which makes your position an argument from ignorance, or you do know that this is fact, which makes your position an argument from dishonesty.

Those who do support capital punishment can make a legitimate argument that there are extreme cases in which the failure of a society to demand a life (capital punishent) is the failure to defend life.

My point was that you were making logical fallacy by attacking your opponent instead of attacking their argument, which is called an Ad Hominem fallacy.

But a compelling philosophical argument can be made for the view that gay is not good, which means that it should be considered a disease in the same way as all the other sexual disorders in the DSM.

has about it something of a demand for a pedigree, which might at least lend some credibility to the claims Christ makes for himself; for want of which, Pilate can do little other than pronounce his truth: «I have power to crucify thee» (which, to be fair, would under most circumstances be an incontrovertible argument).

DO NOT insist on religious leaders making their case by reasoned argument, but by bald assertion or authoritarian claims which are much easier to invent and promote.

p. 265f) seems to me to arise from a failure to appreciate Collingwood's point — viz., that the ontological argument makes explicit a presupposition of thought which understands in terms, inter alia, of the concept of the greatest conceivable.

In fact, it is the feeling of causality which enables the man to distinguish the priority of the flash; and the inversion of the argument, whereby the temporal sequence «flash to blink» is made the premise for the «causality» belief; has its origin in pure theory.

One political position customary among Jews, and often shared also among the more observant, is that of not interfering in the choices of freedom that the state makes for its citizens, reserving only to the individual conscience the right and duty of making rigorous personals choices on arguments in which the law of the state makes room for autonomy and freedom.

In this way the ontological argument, by drawing out the presupposition of metaphysical understanding, indicates that the choice before us is between holding that there is a God and that «reality» makes sense in some metaphysical manner, whether or not we can ever grasp what that sense is, and holding that there is no God and that any apparent metaphysical understanding of reality can only be an illusion which does not significantly correspond to the ultimate nature of things — unless this «nihilism» be regarded as a kind of metaphysical understanding instead of its blank negation.

It is the problematic character of this step which makes the ontological argument unsatisfactory as a proof of God's existence although in the case of Hartshorne himself it was perhaps taken, implicitly if not explicitly, when, as he tells us, «about the age of seventeen, after reading Emerson's Essays, I made up my mind (doubtless with a somewhat hazy notion of what I was doing) to trust reason to the end» (LP viii).

A very good argument can be made that the attempt to teach the Bible in a «neutral» manner is, in fact, to teach against the Bible, which is hardly neutral.

THAT makes gay marriages inherently detrimental to society, the VERY same argument used by pro-gay to prohibit polygamy, which BTW, is ALSO being proposed as an alternate definition of marriage.

i just know i use these same arguments A LOT — because a lot of atheists don't seem to want to read other atheists... which makes me wonder if they really know what they believe.

My argument has presented an analysis of the extensive continuum which clearly makes it true to say that the extensive continuum, as just that set of actual relations among actual occasions which makes the very conception of the continuum as real potentiality intelligible, is indeed actually increased in extent by the concrescence of new occasions.

Sherburne tends, in his argument against regional inclusion, to quote passages in which Whitehead is making the point that when the region of an actual occasion is divided the subregions correspond to its physical feelings but that these physical feelings are not actual occasions capable of independent existence.

@godfreenow In logic, an argument is made when a claim is supported by a set of premises, which both support the other one.

Both attempt to make massive structural arguments to convey the emergence of the current social imaginary, a task to which Le Goff has much to contribute and correct.

Christians must not claim that Christian revelation makes Christianity superior to other religions, she believes: «What Christianity has going for it is its substantive proposal of a way of life — a way of life over which Christians argue in the effort to witness to and be disciples of Christ, and with which they enter into argument with others.»

They often have just enough knowledge of the material to sound intelligent, and make a half - decent argument, which is convincing, but they don't understand it so they're blindly following something.

His own pet proof of «why there almost certainly is no God» (a proof in which he takes much evident pride) is one that a usually mild - spoken friend of mine (a friend who has devoted too much of his life to teaching undergraduates the basic rules of logic and the elementary language of philosophy) has described as «possibly the single most incompetent logical argument ever made for or against anything in the whole history of the human race.»

TheCapitalist, «it is funny how you just contradicted an argument that many atheists make, which is to say that Jesus was just copycat myth derived off of «ancient gods» like Hercules.»