Sentences with phrase «at explanation do»

Not exact matches

I shot my team down on all of these with a polite, but adamant no and an explanation that our time was best spent at doing what we're good at: selling online.

The nation boasts immense human diversity, with limbs and muscles of all sizes, so race or genetic characteristics aren't a valid explanation, said Anirudh Krishna, professor at Duke University, and co-author of a 2008 paper called «Why do some countries win more Olympic medals?»

His explanation indicated the live stream interruption was not due to a technical difficulty, but that doesn't rule out glitches as the cause of at least one other interruption.

Let me start with the simplest explanation for anybody who didn't take economics in university (for my sins I took it for 7 years at UCSD and then University of Chicago).

«If the Mayor did have advance knowledge of changes at the Madison location as he has suggested, the city's residents deserve an explanation as to why no action was taken,» Fitzgerald said in the statement.

Paul Seamus Ryan, vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause, said the latest explanation of the payment — that Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen — does not eliminate the possibility that the payment violated campaign finance laws.

This points out that everything that you explained as being only aplicable to god, which is an explanation given because no other explanation is seen, saying this is amazing so god did it, is nowhere near close to looking at these phenomena, observing and collecting the data on it and saying this is our best understanding of it to date.

At what point does random chance cease to be an equally valid explanation as the alternative explanations that it is a two - headed coin or that I am lying?

RELIGION - there has always been this invisible magical man with no explanation, got bored and thought hey i want some company and * POOF * created everything from nothing besides man that he used dirt to make and women that he used a rib to create then for the next generation a lot of incest happened and now we are at 6 billion people in only 6,000 years were the majority of people will suffer for eternity to do not believe in him, even though he could easily save them...

In fact, you don't even have to have studied psychology to give the explanation I did, which makes the proposal that it was a god who was nagging at Darwin all the more embarrassing, from my point of view.

Look, we've been going at this for a while now and all you've ever been able to do is regurgitate stock Christian explanations.

So how does your school of thought apply regarding the fewest of explanations and fewest assumptions apply when it comes to God who does not want to be made readily known in the first place, but wants us to develop faith in that God instead.Your school of thought could apply well if the notion of God was a God who either wants to be made known or doesn't care whether or not to be made known, but your school of thought doesn't apply at all if said God does not want to be made known but would rather have humanity develop faith, which is not a perfect knowledge.

Without God, we are torn in two directions: universities praise diversity, but students still form cliques; politicians promise a bright future, but our news programmes are distressing; people are obsessed with scientific explanations of everything, and equally obsessed with the sentimental love expressed in pop songs; sexual abuse with a minor is the most shameful of all crimes, but everyone has a right to complete sexual liberation once they reach the age of consent; we relocate all over the world, preferring to live anywhere but home, yet we still agonise over our local sports club; we own many things, and still feel we don't have enough; we believe in discipline at school or at work, but we all have a right to «let ourselves go» at the weekend; we tolerate everything, except people that don't agree with us.

You assert a god is the most logical explanation, but you do not defend the assertion at all.

If you can't understand my explanation above and see that as an attempt at discrediting, without pointing out where exactly it's wrong, then there isn't much more I can do, other than hope one day you'll learn something.

That is what is so frustrating when discussing this because what you should say right at the start is «I believe in a God who doesn't have to follow any rules or logic or reason, can't be disproved even if scientists had 100 % of the universal explanations for existence, and I will continue to believe regardless of what anyone or anything says».

These guys open with self - righteous indignation aimed at Christopher Hitchens, without any explanation or understanding as to why Mr. Hitchens said what he did, and then descend into an «Us vs Them» argument which basically says if you don't believe in a god then you have a personality disorder.

An «explanation» of religion need not be ruled out just because it does not take religion at face value or keep to the first - order utterances of the believer.

If you are really able to do more than «chip away» at cosmology and evolution, then provide a superior explanation of «divine orchestration» in at least same the level of detail as natural processes you are calling inadequate.

Considerable fruit has come when the Church engages fully but carefully with the best possible explanations of reality available at the moment, knowing that such conceptions can and do change over time and that the unchanging truths of Christian faith are able to adapt without any loss.

Having drawn the battle line at the Bible, conservatism will be required to exhaust itself in theories and explanations of how the Bible is not only infallible but does in fact, when read correctly, substantiate all the new theories discovered by the modern age.

When they were rescuing Danny Pink, the Doctor gave Clara reassuring explanations that at the time he clearly didn't believe but could in fact be true — it doesn't have to be A Thing out there, it could have been the airlock releasing etc..

The fourth evangelist, however, does not offer an explanation; in fact, he depicts no baptism at all.

I wonder if «spiritual but not religious» is a bit of a cultural transitional stage in which it is becoming clear that formal religious dogma is at best intellectually unsatisfying, and at worst not only false but dangerous; and yet we don't really know what to do with that part of our brain that seeks magical explanations for what we can not easily understand.

But that is not at all what Paul is saying, and this explanation doesn't fit the context, nor does such an understanding fit with why laws are really added.

I do not agree with those explanations at all.

This rules out causal explanations of perception such as (ii), if it be assumed that there is not immediate awareness of such causal mechanisms within an individual act of perception itself, if one does not have a perception and at the same time experience all the causes which produced it.

I do not find it a fair comparison at all but I welcome an explanation if think you have one.

As for the being which has an extreme sensibility for that color perception, it is questionable whether it would be open to any explanation at all, but rather, by reason of the poverty of its inclinations or out of fear of being disturbed in its pleasant feelings, it would have nothing to do with anything else.

I don't quite know what to think of their stories, but am inclined to accept them at face value, and find their explanations a «mystery».

I must confess at this point that I do not have an explanation for low ecclesial vitality.

Does Cobb's diagnosis and prognosis so privilege historical and theological modes of explanation that something much closer at hand is missed, namely religious insti tutional dynamics?

At two points I do think I owe further explanation.

Again, expect lots of Jesuitical explanations about how affirming and even advancing legal recognition of gay rights doesn't at all entail rejecting the Church's teaching about homosexuality.

I think we have to look at intent and effect — religion, at least in the modern era, creates complex explanations to (continue to) deceive, and does real damage to individuals and society, whereas pop fiction creates elaborate expanations and plots to entertain.

We have a whole set of explanations, and I don't think any of them work at all.

This explanation however does not suffice, because if Jesus had taken any interest at all in the construction of a social order, his predictions of the Kingdom would have shown traces of this interest, as the Jewish Messianic hope did.

The converse of the theory conveniently provided the Tractarians with a summary explanation for the damage done to the English church at the Reformation, just as Butler had found himself a moralistic explanation for the popularity of early 18th century Deism.

Wow, Khan, I don't get your explanation of Christianity at all.

Luther did not at first contradict indulgences in principle: He knew the value of simple explanations for the people.

While atheists tend to be intellectually honest in many ways, they are usually predisposed to naturalism, and normally (in my experience) will search for any explanation that doesn't involve God, even when such explanations are extremely unlikely and sometimes do not apply to the case at all.

Why do these explanations always seem to come down to some nonsensical statement that I'm just supposed to accept at face value?

In explanation of the phenomenon it may be said that an unusually brilliant group of teachers happens to be at work today in this field; yet such reasoning does not carry very far for these teachers had their peers in previous generations.

PDX — It doesn't take a Genius to realize from my statements that i have read things other than the Bible you moron i have spent many hours reading and listening to scientists about their theories on the big bang, i have listened to ideas from the most revered scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will be judged.

The book of Genesis does not give an ultimate explanation of the origin of evil, for evil is at its heart not explicable or intelligible, just as darkness is by its nature not visible.

First, look up «occam's razor» — you don't invent unnecessarily complex explanations for something that really calls for no complex explanation at all.

Without God, we are torn in two directions: universities praise diversity, but students still form cliques; politicians promise a bright future, but all our news programs are distressing; people are obsessed with scientific explanations of everything, and equally obsessed with sentimental love in every pop song; sexual abuse with a minor is the most shameful of all crimes, but everyone has a right to complete sexual liberation once they reach the age of consent; we relocate all over the world, preferring to live anywhere but home, yet we still agonize over our local sports team; we own many things, and still feel like we don't have enough; we believe in discipline at school or at work, but we all have a right to «let ourselves go» on the weekend; we tolerate everything, except people that don't agree with us.

I've gone on wordpress forums and the explanation on how to do it made no sense to me at all — first off, I don't know how to write any code so I was pretty clueless from the get go.

«They are given a handout with an explanation of who we are, what we do and why,» Staib explains «We are part of the Department of Interior and the National Parks Service, so we work in tandem so everyone is aware of what's happening at City Tavern.»

They could be simpler basics that do not warrant a lot of explanation but happen to find there way into a lot of my food (looking at you, almond butter) or perhaps less glamorous components to a longer recipe (you'll see).