 | the late Wesley C. Salmon - Science - 2005 - 304 pages
...of the answer which I had before given, that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the...second case, as in the first? For this reason, and no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in... | |
 | Christopher Upham Murray Smith, Robert Arnott - History - 2005 - 452 pages
...of the answer which I have before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the...as admissible in the second case, as in the first? The inference, we think, is inevitable; that the watch must have had a maker, that there must have... | |
 | Phil Dowe - Religion - 2005 - 220 pages
...had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? . . . For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect 5. Paley 1812. 6. Paley... | |
 | Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch - Education - 2006 - 190 pages
...think of the answer which I had be/ore given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the...as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive — what we could not discover in the stone... | |
 | Michael J. Behe - Evolution (Biology) - 1996 - 353 pages
...been there. Yet why should this answer not serve for the watch as 2 I 2 WHAT DOES THE BOX TELL US? well as for the stone; why is it not as admissible...as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive—what we could not discover in the stone—that... | |
 | Colin Jager - Literary Criticism - 2007 - 304 pages
...which I had before given — that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Vet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? . . . For this reason, and for no other, vi/.. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive... | |
 | David Livingstone Smith - Language Arts & Disciplines - 2007 - 262 pages
...the answer which I had before given, — that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the...as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz.. that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive . . . that its several parts are framed and... | |
 | David Livingstone Smith - Language Arts & Disciplines - 2007 - 262 pages
...the answer which I had before given, — that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the...as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz. that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive . . . that its several parts are framed and... | |
 | Nathaniel C. Comfort - Education - 2007 - 196 pages
...of the answer which I had before given, that for any thing I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the...as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive — what we could not discover in the stone... | |
 | J. Scott Turner - Science - 2007 - 316 pages
...the answer, which I had before given, that, for any thing I know, the watch might always have been there. Yet, why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? . . . [The] inference, we think, is inevitable; that the watch must have had a maker; that there must... | |
| |
I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone ? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first ? For this reason, and for no other, viz. 
