 | 1802 - 764 페이지
...Attributes of the Deity, collected from Lh: Appearances oj Nature. the watch, as well as for the stooe' why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first ? For tn.> reason, and for no other, vi/. n-1 when we come to-inspect the *iW' we perceive (what we could... | |
 | Edmund Burke - 1807 - 1014 페이지
...answer •which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might пате always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone Î Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first ? For this reason, and for no other,... | |
 | William Paley, William Hamilton Reid - 1810 - 350 페이지
...answer "which I'hftd before 'given. Y:et Svhy should not this answer serve for the watch Ss well as' the stone ? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first ? For this rra'ron^ and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could... | |
 | William Paley - 1811 - 574 페이지
...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...the second case, as in the first ? For this reason, B and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover... | |
 | Thomas Ridgley - 1814 - 558 페이지
...before given, that, fnr aj>y thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Vet, why shouid not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for...as admissible in the second case, as in the first? 1'or this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what... | |
 | Thomas Ridgley - 1814 - 554 페이지
...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 watch, as well asforthc stone? Why is it not as admis. *ble in the second case, as in the first? For this reason,... | |
 | Elegant extracts - 1816 - 1082 페이지
...I knew, the wtch might hare always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the **<i M well as for the stone ? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in ttf first? For this reason, and for no "tier, viz. that, when we come to inspect *e watch, we perceive... | |
 | William Paley - 1819 - 302 페이지
...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 Watch, as well as for the stone r Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first P For this reason. and for no other,... | |
 | Charles Morey - 1824 - 212 페이지
...of the auswer 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 watch as well as for the stone. For this reason and for no other, viz : that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive, (what... | |
 | William Paley - 1824 - 382 페이지
...answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yel why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone 1 why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first ? For this reason, and for no other,... | |
| |
... the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for any thing I knew the watch... 
