Sentences with phrase «here is logical»

Here is a logical (and effective) solution to the challenge of sellers who want to overprice their homes.

What he said here is logical as well as historically accurate.

Here is a logical contradiction in Paul's thought, and in early Christian thought generally, which we can only accept.

What you have here is a logical fallacy known as an «appeal to authority.»

Now, here's the logical trick: since the sum - total of active and passive investments matches the market, the proportion allocated to any market segment by active managers must, in aggregate, equal the allocation made by passive investors.

Here are some logical reasons for that.

So here's a logical argument for you:

Not exact matches

Here's the flaw in that seemingly logical thought train.

My logical side is screaming at me to be careful here.

The next logical step from here is the see how stocks performed in and around these past recessions.

Playing it straight here, the yield curve is, like stock to gold ratios, on its way but not to logical limitations.

There is a clear, logical, economically sound, and empirically provable reason why profit margins are elevated here.

But it is much, much more logical to use science to try and find out why we are here than just settling for whatever holy book it is you worship as truth and leaving it at that.

The problem here is that you're asking the masses the be logical and understanding.

They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical but sly arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.

They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.

I have offered countless well - reasoned, logical explanations here explaining a wide range of behaviors and phenoma, none of which you've been able to refute.

There are many more possibilities than being poofed here by a creator god, and even if there were some kind of creator, there is no logical reason to assume that there is only one of them.

One can see here the connection between the internal relation between eternal objects, and the fact that from the standpoint of the prehending occasion, its datum, as a logical subject placed within a functional context, is internally related to it.

Even with the addition of a video and keeping this story on the front page all weekend, she STILL makes the logical mistake of saying «here is what I have decided is the reality of the situation» (a reality which is HEAVILY debatable, especially in light of recent neurological research) and then went looking for whatever philosophy was the closest match for her preconceived determination of reality.

Rather than explicitly invoking consciousness to effect the reconciliation of opposites as he does in the Phenomenology, Hegel here interprets Aufhebung (sublation) as a purely logical movement, in which the «contradiction,» or opposed or «dirempted» elements, are as «matter» to the «form» of the resolution on a higher level.

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.

The point here is that we simply can not reduce logical relationships to the relationships that arise between physical causes and their effects: hence, reasoning can not be based on a purely material process of causality.

In wildly ecstatic ways, and with all the impreciseness and lack of logical consistency which goes with that kind of unbelievably good news, the New Testament wants to say to us that here is man's chance to become free and to achieve his full human potential.

Some on here profess to be reasonable and logical.

But here's the germane point: To reject human exceptionalism is essentially to claim that we are just another animal in the forest, which leads to the logical conclusion that killing should be an allowable remedy to illness and disability.

Instead of believing with Hartshorne that man's convictions about the ultimate character of reality can and should be determined by allegedly neutral logical principles, the understanding here being argued is that man's thinking about God is and should be governed by a vision emerging in the context of faith, a vision that is itself decisively conditioned by its rootage in history and in the prereflective levels of consciousness.

If we admit that the conceivable is the logically possible (and, again, logical, not causal or scientific, or «real» possibility is all one needs to argue for here), then it follows from our ability to conceive that nothing at all may have existed, that it is not necessary that there be any universe at all.

I'm here, hopping on one leg, saying «some of these guys are not as logical or reasonable as they imagine they are.»

What we find here is the beginning of the forms of implication as self - evident axioms used by Whitehead and Russell to deduce hundreds of proved theorems by displaying the logical connections between the primitive axioms and the theorems.

(6:601) However, we need not here concern ourselves with this distinction because logical possibility is all we need to establish.

In Alice in Wonderland the King of Hearts solemnly advised Alice to begin at the beginning and go to the end.16 That would seem logical here, but there is a better way.

... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself.

Incoherence and coherence are here clearly distinguished in concept from the contradictoriness or freedom from it which belong to logical inconsistency and consistency, even though an essential relationship of mutual conditionality governs both senses.

However, I am also suspicious of the use of «logical force» here.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

Here again one is reminded of Whitehead's analysis of the origin of a hitherto dominant, superficial concept of substance out of the pragmatic arrangement of reality and especially of the explicitly formulated thought that logical simplicity, distinction, and clarity may not be equated with ontological originality and depth (PR 54/69; 162/188).

What's missing here are the mechanical pieces that would help it all fit together: a convincing cast (save, it must be said up top, an MVP - caliber Chris Pine), a logical narrative, and forward momentum.

Here the philosopher is following the Husserl of the Logical Investigations, as well as the logic of Frege, in an anti-historicist trend which favors «the objectivity of meaning in general.»

If you really think that intelligence is a good thing, then the only logical path here is to use that intelligence and realize that god most likely does not exist.

The call here is for a more concrete determination of the general formula — an identification of the amount and / or specific varieties of power a being would have to possess in order to count as having the logical limit of power.

But he never confused this logical notion of identity («things are identical» when every predicate is true of both or false of both» [3.398]-RRB- with the notion of individual identity through time, which is at issue here.

We have here the two strongest general forces (apart from the mere impulse of the various senses) which influence men, and they seem to be set one against the other — the force of our religious intuitions, and the force of our impulse to accurate observation and logical deduction.

«1 Perhaps we should say here rather that theism comprises an entire theory of which statements to the effect that God exists are logical consequences of the theory's axioms, given definitions of «God» and «exists».

The reason I ask you to face the realities of your argument here is because I'm hoping that you'll take a close look at the logical and ethical inconsistencies of your own position, and learn something about yourself from that close look.

The famous theologica negativa, so far as it was or is merely negative, was wrong all through, or not wrong at all.13 Thomas says it is not wrong at all; I say this is a more nearly logical position than that it is wrong here and there.

I've had many a debate over the last 3 - 4 years here and in many other forums where the «In God We Trust» issue was brought up not only to «promote» but to also, make a false logical leap to... «There «is» a God»... and it is the christian god.

There is, at least, a logical difficulty here.

In what I have read of his work, plus a smattering here and there of related authors, I have not found what I think would be logical, suitable, and important: a serious look into what is sometimes called «the myth of beginnings» of Christianity.

Some of his work is quoted by others in papers and articles I read so I know there are others greatly concerned abut what he is doing here, not just antagonists like Troubleunderfoot, who by the way, is asking Jeremy to really consider the logical conclusions of what he is trying to teach.