Sentences with phrase «whole argument of»

As I started this comment it's difficult to get hold of the whole argument of the paper, but so far I have concluded that the fault is in the handling of the pressure changes in the atmosphere.

Soni: Socio - economic indicators are of utmost importance because the whole argument of socio - economic inclusion is based on this premise.

There's the whole argument of wanting everyone to experience the game fully and see the end content, but at the same -LSB-...]

The whole argument of «it adds challenge and strategy to the game!»

So instead of having a temporary birth control for my cat and making the whole argument of reproduction moot, we were forced to decide to let nature take its course.

He takes CNN's side and also notes the folks showering praise on Parker aren't exactly the most conservative of commentators, which sort of undercuts the whole argument of her being a supposed counterweight to the former governor.

As James O'Donnell has written, «Memory has the power to supplant «reality,» or at least what mortals know of reality: indeed, the whole argument of this half of Book X is that it is through memory that, after the fall, we encounter a more authentic reality.»

Not exact matches

Its argument now is that breaking up EMC would provide shareholders more return — that the piece parts are worth more separately than they are as part of a semi-unified whole.

And it crosses over all these lines: local environmental impact, there's the climate argument, there's the First Nations rights argument, there's the stewardship argument, so it can really draw from a whole wide sector of civil society in the way that the faceless catastrophe of climate change can't.

The whole «Dow 36,000» argument was essentially based on the notion that all earnings could be paid out as dividends, earnings would still grow, and that investors would be willing to hold stocks for a long - term return of just 6 % annually.

For a while now our focus has been on relative value and there is very little argument that, after the first quarter price collapse, a whole lot of risk has been taken out of bitcoin, ether, Ripple and thousands of others.

Design is an often neglected component of good content marketing and it is Canva's goal to make that argument to the content - marketing community as a whole.

Nye's first two examples basically blew apart the whole creationist argument — we have ice cores that demonstrate a history of over 680,000 years.

I have learned that the bible and it's contents are one of the best arguments against Christianity as a whole.

She does not address or refute the underlying arguments of her opposition at any point in this whole article!

Taken as a whole they've made a very compelling argument that the explanations of the universe provided by both science and religion are incomplete and always evolving, and that one perspective is no more or less valid than another.

The irony of this whole big flap about Jesus is that He is just as mythical a figure as Santa Claus, maybe even more so, thus making the whole argument moot.

The minute to bring religion in as your justification for abortion laws (or any laws honestly) the whole argument becomes invalid and should be tossed out due to a seperation of church and state.

This isn't the whole argument, of course.

To be temporal in Heidegger's sense is to have a complex unity disclosed against the background and in the pattern of unity of the three temporal horizons, past, present, and future.1 It is essential to his whole argument to realize that temporal unities are not time - like nor defined in relation to time, or to put it another way, that past, present, and future are neither «times» nor «parts of time.»

Uh, and I'm aware that my example might not do justice to your argument, but I have to say that your understanding of this whole «biblical sin and sinner» thingy is quite skewed.

If their argument wasn't so flimsy, this might even seem like an outright attack on faith (however, given the nature of the whole list, it's really hard to take it seriously, and see it as anything more than a bad hot take for a sake of a hot take.)

He is good at putting a simple point that demolishes the whole edifice of an argument.

Kirk has done a great service in debunking a whole range of pseudo-scholarly lines of argument in one slim volume.

So what you are saying is forget the whole «Christian» aspect of the argument.

The whole point of such arguments is to make sure that we do not invent God.

Regarding the argument that we can't be «unborn» etc, I think we have to be very careful building doctrine upon analogies, because analogies can never give us the whole truth, they only illustrate an aspect of it.

When I hear these sorts of arguments for observing Passover and other Jewish feasts, alarm bells begin to sound, and a whole host of Scriptures from the New Testament begin the «Hora» (the Jewish circle dance) inside my head.

«We may hold that the existence of God can not be directly established by any logical argument, dialectical or otherwise; but we can insist that some objective principle of order and value is immanent in rational thought in particular, and in the cosmos as a whole.»

But when the subject of civil religion became a minor academic industry, I became increasingly concerned, as conferences, panels and symposia on the subject proliferated, that the whole issue was bogging down into arguments over definition and that substance was being overlooked.

Griffiths accuses death penalty advocates of theatrics, while in fact his whole line of argument is melodramatic, as when he refers to executions as «blood sacrifices.»

Anyway, there are lots of arcane arguments for this whole discussion.

Following on missives from Catholics to House Speaker John Boehner, from Catholics and evangelicals to Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to Congress as a whole, Protestant leaders such as the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, are advancing the argument that the GOP budget is an immoral document.

«There are a whole lot of things that might feel natural and innate that are wrong — you argument is bunk.»

This synthetic proposal is the most creative and controversial aspect of the whole argument.

Most of the creationist / ID web sites have quietly begun to ask their followers to stop using a whole set of arguments against evolution, including the «just a theory» argument, because they reveal the person's woeful ignorance of real science.

There never was a time in History that atheists exist, only in this present stage of our intellectual developement that they deny His exisrence, but it can be easily explained that they are just part of the dialectical process of having to have two opposing arguments or forces to arrive to the truth, The opposing forces today are the theists or religious believers of all religions and the other are the atheists who denies religion, The reslultant truth in the future will be Panthrotheism, the belief that we are all one with the whole universe with God, and that we Had all to unite to prepare for human survival that will subject us humans in the future.Aided by the the enlightend consevationist, environmentalists, humanists and all of the concerned activists, we will develop a kind of universal harmony and awareness that we are all guided towards love and concern for all of our specie.The great concern of the whole conscious and caring world to the natural disaster in the Phillipines,, the most theist country now is a positive sign towards this religious direction.Panthrotheism means we will be One with God.

The role of the ontological argument in Hartshorne's philosophical theology should not be exaggerated by pointing to this argument as evidence of the anti-empirical character of Hartshorne's position, as a whole.

I believe we are our brothers and sisters keepers and one could make the argument that it falls under the category of rational self interest; however, the minute people think they can enforce that philosophy at the end of a barrel of a gun (gov «t) the whole thing falls apart and religion becomes secular humanism where the state replaces God.

It is not an argument with a whole lot of merit.

Darwin ripped the heart out of one of the God of the Gaps arguments (i.e. we don't know how complex life forms arose, therefore the Judeo - Christian god did it) but Hubble showed that the whole idea of there being any cosmic importance to planet Earth is naked parochialism to the highest mathematical degree possible.

If your whole argument for the existence of a god and the truth of your religion is hinged on threats of torture, you don't have much of an argument.

I now turn to a short sketch of what I take to be Hartshorne's most important arguments against the classical attributes in Group I. Let us begin with absoluteness (in the sense of lack of internal relatedness), which is the key to the whole thing.

His whole argument, particularly in the last portion of the book, is that they are priests after Christ, with priestly duties to perform, some of which are performed out in the world, and others of which are performed in the assembly of believers, gathered before God's throne on the heavenly Zion — and how dare anyone forsake priestly service on the heavenly Zion in favor of letting a Levitical priest do it for you on the earthly Zion!

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.»

Besides, you missed the whole point of the argument; if any of these variables were different, the universe would not exist.

The validity of the results of the reflection can be supported only by the book as a whole, but the structure of the book and of the argument can only be understood in the light of the a priori considerations as well.

Unfortunately because of filters I can not post the whole argument but please see thedevineevidence website at the COMmon domain.

He shows that this is similar to Chesterton's approach and W.V.O. Quine's argument that «the only valid test of a belief is whether it fits into a web of connected beliefs that accords with our experience of the whole» (p. 63 - I would think that Newman's concept of the «Illative Sense» would dovetail with this.)

The whole argument is to establish the superiority of Jesus Christ.