Sentences with phrase «difference between the nature»

The description of the generic character of an actual entity should include God, as well as the lowliest actual occasion, though there is a specific difference between the nature of God and that of any occasion.

This is due to the nature of man himself, as well as to the difference between the nature of the realm of God and the nature of the world science describes.

One reason lay in the difference between the nature of the two types of attachments.

Using two materials, stone and steel, The Cane of Titan reflects the difference between nature and industry, yin and yang.

Not exact matches

However, given the increasingly competitive nature of software development, the creative problem - solving that empowered engineering teams provide will likely prove the difference between the winners and the losers in your and our respective spaces.

I don't really see any big difference between fiat currencies and this one, apart centralized nature of state issued ones.

The major difference between cryptocurrencies and traditional financial models is in the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies.

What is the main difference between my claim about the subject of my dream and your claim about the nature of reality?

he IS grasping at straws since the singel parent thing wasnt an issue... secondly... you apparently need to go to school and learn that there IS a difference between a woman and a man and that children benefit from BOTH... and hwo a man loves a woman as nature intended... its people like you who are reason for high divorce rates in USA, because they don tknow what love or marriage is..

There is a difference between the creative passage of nature «which is not properly serial at all» and passage in any one time - series (CN 178).

Due to the limited statistical and methodological certainty allowed by biological science, the occurrence of technical errors in biological experiments, the differences between human and animal embryo development, the rapidity by which the cloning procedure produces a totipotent zygote, and the philosophical and theological nature of the question, there is no biological experiment that will prove with moral certainty that a human zygote never exists during the OAR procedure.

4 The answer to this question will depend (as Deleuze clearly recognizes), not simply upon an analysis of the nature of monadic units, but on confronting the issue at its most sensitive point, namely, with respect to the difference between the Leibnizian God who «compares and chooses,» and the Whiteheadian God who «affirms incompossibles and passes them through.»

While exhorting us to contemplate nature, the Qur» an says, «In the creation of skies and the earth, the difference between night and day, the ships which run at sea carrying that which is useful for mankind, the rain water which Allah sends down from the sky to revive the earth after its death, and to spread animals on it, and the arrangement of winds and clouds between sky and earth, in all those things there are evidences (for the existence of God) for those who make use of their brains» (Surah II, 164).

But in addition to the thoroughgoing logical differences between Hegel and Whitehead to which we have largely directed our attention, there is an important difference in their respective conceptions of the nature of the metaphysical argument itself that should at least be touched upon here.

This last difference, however, highlights perhaps the most important and persistent difference between the speakers, one that remained sadly unexplored: a difference over the nature of history.

Regardless of the degree or nature of gender differences, to propose that men and women share leadership and authority is not to say there are no differences between males and females.

Research comparing human and chimpanzee genomes, published in Nature, found that there are more than 40 million differences between the two species» base pairs, which are the DNA building blocks.

The distance between the moral principles which the Church proclaims and — leaving aside for the moment the question of the Church's pastoral office — which alone can be propounded doctrinally, and the concrete prescriptions by which the individual and the various human communities freely shape their existence, has now increased to an extent that introduces what is practically a difference of nature as compared with earlier times.

A major difference, however, between Bergson's theory and James's notion of the stream of thought as outlined in his Psychology is a matter of stress: whereas James, in the Psychology, was hesitant in extending his conclusions beyond the flow of our experience itself, 1 Bergson was always concerned primarily with what is revealed in our experience about the nature of reality, and in particular the nature of time.

Unlike the work of bulldozers, which Berry calls «a powerful generalizer» that works against the impulse «to take care of things, to pay attention to the details,» «good work is always modestly scaled, for it can not ignore either the nature of individual places or the differences between places, and it always involves a sort of religious humility, for not everything is known.

The only significant point of difference between my understanding of the Trinity and theirs is the one which I urged earlier in my critique of their respective theories: namely, that the role of the Spirit within the Trinity as the bond of love between the Father and the Son should not overshadow the fact that God is by nature community or interpersonal process.

The differences between the kinds of things in nature then go back to the different contrasts, repetitions, divisions, or modes of integration involved in the chains of prehensions by which actual occasions make up societies with different defining characteristics.

(«Society and the State,» p. 11 f.) This difference between the strength of the political and the social principles is called the «political surplus» by Buber and is explained in terms of the difference in nature between «Administration» and «Government.»

When Enlightenment thinkers decided that the whole of nature operates in terms of mechanical forces, they concluded that the apparent difference between organisms and mechanisms is only apparent.

But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong - in other words, if there is no Law of Nature - what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one?

The corollary of this unity of spirit and nature is the belief that there is no essential difference between natural events and «miracles.»

Our failure to recognize the differences between humankind and extrahuman creation is but one more manifestation of our alienation from nature: we don't even know enough about nature to see the differences within it.

The difference between God's «selfishness» and our own is that in God's nature his selfishness and his altruism coincide for the reason previously given.

He engaged, therefore, in a lengthy discussion of the «dominion» mandate of Genesis 1, the nature and extent of the fall into sin, the difference between parental and political authority, the creational status of women, and the biblical portrayal of the origins of national identities.

While many sustaining - time programs have had as large or larger audiences than paid - time programs, what has made a big difference in the disproportionate growth of paid - time programs has been the differences in the nature of the audiences between the two types of programming.

The philosopher Leo Strauss said that the world — meaning cosmos or nature — is the home of the human mind, but even real guy philosophers (and in the classical world there was no difference between philosophers and scientists) are more than minds.

Therefore, humanism denies the possibility of a permanent unity between man and nature; and it asserts that, in the long run, no human actions or values will make any difference whatever.9 And Hartshorne expostulates that such a creed is impossible for man to live by.

And though God and man are sharply contrasted as Creator and creature, as the Holy One and the sinner, still this difference is never regarded as a difference between two natures, nor is the redemption of man conceived as deliverance from a lower and endowment with a higher nature.

The same point was made in Process and Reality, where Whitehead noted that there are no distinct boundaries in the continuum of nature, and thus no distinct boundaries between living organisms and inorganic entities; whatever differences there are is a matter of degree.

This means that all phenomena are identical in their constituent self - identity; all are in a state of constant transformation; and there are no absolute differences between human nature and the natural order, body and mind, male and female, enlightenment and ignorance.

Whitehead also contended that precise classification of the differences between organic and inorganic nature is not possible; although such classification might be pragmatically useful for scientific investigation, it is dangerous for nature.

Differences exist between matter and mind, but in their essential nature they remain the same.

The difference, from the Whiteheadian point of view, is that whereas these deep ecologists think we must choose between an ethical - valuational approach to other creatures and an appreciation of our unity with the whole system of nature, Whitehead shows us the truth of both.

When studying or teaching Hinduism or Buddhism, the Westerner soon becomes aware of the rather wide differences of perspective and meaning between the Judeo - Christian and the Hindu - Buddhist ways of viewing the nature of man and man's relation to his world.

The difference between positive and negative electricity, or between high and low frequency waves, may seem, and in nature may be, partly qualitative; but physics as a theory of nature takes into account only the spatio - temporal aspects or consequences of such qualities, whatever the latter may be.

Whitehead offers an alternative formulation and claims on behalf of his formulation that it can account for all experimental results accounted for by the Einsteinian formulation but that it represents a different interpretation of these results in terms of a more adequate concept of nature (PNK vi; CN vii, 182; IS 125 - 35).18 The major theoretical difference between the two formulations is that whereas in the Einsteinian formulation the metric structure of the space - time continuum is variable from point to point and in differing directions (that is, heterogeneous and nonisotropic), in the Whiteheadian formulation the metric structure of the space - time continuum is uniform from point to point and in differing directions (that is, homogeneous and isotropic).

11The latter comments occur in the context of the chapter on the «bifurcation of nature, but it is clear that Whitehead (at this point in time) holds the idealists responsible for this bifurcation, along with reductionists like Newton and dualists like Locke, because all bog down on the alleged difference, and the subsequent question of the relation between, nature and mind, rather than developing a pure concept of nature in itself.

According to Whitehead, the interrelated nature of meaning allows for the differences in meaning that can occur between the speaker and the hearer, and more importantly, between the writer and the reader.

Knowing I have a sin nature and that nature is as capable as anyone with that nature to do evil makes us equals - the only difference between me and anyone not a Christian is the bold of Christ - on that principle we meet learn the Word and doctrine and if need be share our pain and temptations and learn to trust God and each other.

It later explained, «While Islam and Christianity are both monotheistic, we believe there are fundamental differences between the two faiths, including what they teach about God's revelation to humanity, the nature of God, the path to salvation, and the life of prayer.»

True, we may well be approaching the democratic age, for in that social state the idea that men and women have different natures is replaced by the claim that differences between men and women are socialized.

What difference might it make in the way you see and treat both yourself and others if you view human nature as inherently evil or inherently good or somewhere in between?

There is obviously a difference between experiencing God in the solitude of nature and in the community of the church.

While Islam and Christianity are both monotheistic, we believe there are fundamental differences between the two faiths, including what they teach about God's revelation to humanity, the nature of God, the path to salvation, and the life of prayer.

There are fundamental differences between the two regarding the nature and purpose of marriage, which in a secular society means, inevitably, that the state's understanding of marriage is going to prevail, and be enforced by coercive measures.