 | 1802 - 764 páginas
...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... | |
 | 1803 - 572 páginas
...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...when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what wt could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose,... | |
 | 1803 - 818 páginas
...stone? Why is it not as adoiitóiblu in the second rase, as in the in . t ? For this reason, and tor no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we <чшЦ not discover in the stone) that its seveiu parU are framed and put together fur purpose, cg... | |
 | 1807 - 1012 páginas
...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...come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could oot discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed ami put together for a purpose, eg that... | |
 | William Paley, William Hamilton Reid - 1810 - 350 páginas
...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 páginas
...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, B and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover... | |
 | Thomas Ridgley - 1814 - 554 páginas
...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,...perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) Uut its several parts are fi-arm-d, and put together for a purpose, eg that they are so formed and... | |
 | Thomas Ridgley - 1814 - 558 páginas
...always been there. Vet, why shouid 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? 1'or this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what... | |
 | Elegant extracts - 1816 - 1082 páginas
...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 páginas
...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, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive, (what... | |
| |
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... 
