answersLogoWhite

0

AllQ&AStudy Guides
Best answer

Some words do not have direct opposites [antonyms]. The word "how" has no antonym.
As an adverb:

absolutely, unconditionally; incontrovertibly; incomprehensibly

As a conjunction, it really has no antonym.

For further reference, please check the following page:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/how?s=t

This answer is:
Related answers

Some words do not have direct opposites [antonyms]. The word "how" has no antonym.
As an adverb:

absolutely, unconditionally; incontrovertibly; incomprehensibly

As a conjunction, it really has no antonym.

For further reference, please check the following page:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/how?s=t

View page

Synonyms:doubtless, doubtlessly, incontestably, incontrovertibly, indisputably, it seems, it would seem, manifestly, obviously, officially, ostensibly, outwardly, patently, plainly, professedly, seemingly, to all appearances, undoubtedly, unmistakably, without question

View page

Glenn Miller does not, technically, have a BURIAL site at Arlington Cemetery. However, he did die during active military service; indeed, he died while performing his duty as an army officer during a time of war. However, his remains were never found; and it is still not incontrovertibly resolved what happened to him. Thus, his daughter requested and received -- just like the next of kin of ANY such lost, fallen soldier would receive -- the placement of a memorial stone at Arlington.

View page

Hard question to answer. The seemingly obvious answer is yes, but that is not accurate. Those who practice suicide bombing in current areas of conflict are said to recruit young or easily manipulated people to carry out their political agendas. So, the motivation could be said to be evil. Manipulating anyone else into a situation in which that person is destroyed is plainly and incontrovertibly wrong. If, however, a rational person who has exhausted all other means to rectify an injustice logically and reasonably comes to the decision to blow himself up, provided no other is injured in the process, well, this is his decision as much as the Buddhist monks who immolated themselves in protest to the Vietnam war.

View page

It cannot be done.

In order to prove that Jesus was the son of God "historically", one must first incontrovertibly prove that God exists. This falls outside of the scope of science (and therefore true history). We then must prove that God impregnated Mary (which would require that God himself testify, since there's no way of performing any sort of genetic test on Mary or Jesus). We then must prove that Jesus was indeed the son of Mary, which too would require genetic testing.

So far, we can't even conclusively prove that Jesus existed (though it is possible) in a historical context since it has been shown that the only 3rd party verification of Jesus' existence (the records of Roman historian Josephus) were later proved to be doctored.

AnswerRead the Bible. The whole great book testifies that Jesus is the son of God and is God. Science helps prove that God does exist.
View page
Featured study guide
📓
See all Study Guides
✍️
Create a Study Guide
Search results