Sentences with phrase «human language does»

Awareness of our innate smelling abilities, however, is complicated because the human language doesn't have words for a trillion smells, and much of smelling happens under the radar of our consciousness.

They're spiritual languages that communicate truths about God that human language doesn't have words to express.»

A sign in human language does not correspond to a thing.

Human language draws its function from this efficacy and power of the Word of God, except that human language does not have the same degree of efficacy and power: it can convey falsehood as well as truth.

Not exact matches

I don't mean this literally: The «from» line might still be your company's name, but the content should feel as if it comes from a human being, speaking in the first person (using «I» or «we» and addressing the recipient as «you»), with natural - sounding language.

Though the rules of human languages can and do vary, proponents of the generativist model argue they can only do so within strict parameters.

The app centers around a colorful feed, which Reddy also says has a combination of AI (natural language processing also analyzes every post) and human moderation to make sure that users retain their free speech but don't engage in targeted harassment and other negativity.

So Primer offers to take the load off humans by doing the digging, the compiling, and the summarizing for them with its natural language processing tech.

Also, it seems there may be human languages that don't fit in the universal grammar framework.

But it is reasonable to believe that an agnostic or atheist on this commentary will be reasonably fair enough to acknowledge that we are not at the apex of human knowledge, and have the humility that also acknowledge that while we all aspire to the knowledge of God, we don't have the math, language or tools to even come close to it.

It did not take a human language for this to add up.

just like children learn to make pictures before they learn how to correctly make written language so did early humans.

And how do you even defend yourself against such a barrage when someone thinks it's their human right to foul the air with any kind of language they «damn well» please, anytime they feel like it?

(In philosophical language: divine omniscience does not imply human determination).

Thus, metaphors and models of God are understood to be discovered as well as created, to relate to God's reality not in the sense of being literally in correspondence with it, but as versions or hypotheses of it that the community (in this case, the church) accepts as relatively adequate.16 Hence, models of God are not simply heuristic fictions; the critical realist does not accept the Feuerbachian critique that language about God is nothing but human projection.

And though there is the language of God, it has more to do with the human institution and what people in that insituttion are comfortable with about what they want God to be?

Human belonging does not mean physical possession alone; indeed the language of possession violates the spirit of belonging.

Jesus» language in all its vigorous overstatement still reflects a sense of divine fury over the failure of the divine purpose to work itself out in the actions of human beings that does not compute with our urbane, 20th - century middle - class liberal Christianity.

For Jesus» language in all its vigorous overstatement still reflects a sense of divine fury over the failure of the divine purpose to work itself out in the actions of human beings that does not compute with our urbane, 20th - century middle - class liberal Christianity.

Even those who don't understand a culture's language are sometimes able to grasp the emotional significance of human interactions by careful attention to nonverbal cues.

I did find that they were suppose to be animals that understood human language and hunters would chat to them.

If I were to guess — and that is all any outsider can do at this point — I would say that the language of intrinsic value still in the Charter, granting nature some immunity from human need, language which, as noted, the Earth Charter Commission regards as essential and nonnegotiable, will prove the final stumbling block to official acceptance.

A language that unites divine and human does need to be carefully worked out, but the question is certainly not absurd or unintelligible.

What he does promise us is a future so glorious that it can not be fully described in human language (1 Cor.

Why did God create humans in different colors and gave them different languages??

Then, once the «reproductive rights» language is adopted, CRLP and others take that language back to the legal systems of the participating nations and claim (as the CRLP did in its own lawsuit) that such «agreements... favor protection of reproductive rights, including abortion, as internationally recognized human rights.»

In Genesis 1 we do not see directly the creation of human language by God, but «we see something like the circulation of an underground river, before its appearance as a spring above ground.

Every human experience of language grasps it as repetition: no one would speak if those who gave him birth did not speak to him first.»

At best Braine shows thathuman beings have an existence that transcends the body because they have language, but he does not show how or why only human beings and not other higher animals possess transcendence when they are all alike psycho - physical beings, because animals are not to be explained mechanistically either.

Saying that God speaks does not necessarily allude to language or human speech.

I do believe in good leadership — by good human beings — with goals — but I guess its down to language is isn't it?

It is because many of the terms lack meaning that squares with verifiable human experience (must be verifiable to others, as well, for purposes of proof; but inverse this requirement, as I did with language, and you end up with the following: if something can't be evidenced to others, there is a good likelihood that it is not what the individual thinks it is).

It seems to me that both Bergson and Peirce had the insight that the cosmos, including human languages, does involve evolution from past to future that expands reality.

Does myth express a timeless philosophy of human life, or is it a real event of salvation history (e.g. the event of the resurrection), an event to which faith knows itself to be related, and to which it bears witness in the language of mythology?

They are just often addressing more than the human experience and condition, but have to do so in human terms due to the limitations of human logic and language.

He is convinced that the language about God does not really add anything important to our understanding of common human experience.

However, being an atheist I do not believe in god and can not see why people want to take serious a fairy tale written and misinterpreted so, many ways like it was passed down through word of mouth and was not translated until 400 years after the original language became extinct never mind that regards of the accuracy it was still written by a human.

James Gustafson, Treasure in Earthen Vessels: The Church as a Human Community (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), developed the concept of the church as a community of language, although he does not press the implication of language beyond its Christian symbols; nor does he argue that the community employing this language is either essentially or primarily the local church.

This «unveiling» is expressed through the Scriptures, the human authors of which are inspired to write what God wishes while employing their own faculties and doing so in the language and culture of their time.

The only way to comprehend the strange assumptions underlying such language usage is by realizing, as speakers and writers seem to do, that a woman is actually considered the human - not - quite - human (in Dorothy Sayers's words).

Or do we reach the true meaning of Biblical language by passing through a process of secularization that stills all human language about God, thereby allowing man to respond passively in faith to the full and final language of God?

This has always happened throughout church history, when new statements are brought forth to complete earlier insights in order to do justice to the inexhaustible riches of divine revelation even in the earthen vessel of human language.»

human language has not found the words to express the pleasure, the joy, the surprising awakening to another world, that god exists, that he lives and loves me, the missing part, the answer to all questions with one touch, to see life as it is and as it should be, and to do nothing to have entered into this dimension except to ask, to beg, to plead with all one's strength - merely to know him, if he is there.

I do indeed stand on the distinction between a priori (or metaphysical) and empirical in the sense given this distinction by Popper, except that, whereas Popper defines empirical as «conceivably falsifiable by observation» and apparently limits observation to certain forms of human perception, I sometimes include divine perception (in Whitehead's language, God's physical prehensions).

Some of the apes communicate via sign language, and outside of an excellent antagonist played by Woody Harrelson, we don't get to know many humans on a personal level.

One would submit that bird - song and bee - dance fit with the natural, physical purposes of those species, whereas human language and artefacts which have sophisticated goals and meanings within human culture do not.

l) «What, in short, is the «mechanism» by which God makes himself known to man, by which the Almighty touches the mightless, by which the Limitless penetrates the narrow confines of the limited, by which Time enters moment, by which the Holy invades the unholy, and the Word speaks in words» Even when this happens, as ultimately it did, as with finality it always does, in the person of Jesus Christ, all the forms and ingenuity of human language are inadequate to give it mechanical explanation.

To use the language of our day, when God self - identified as a human being, he did not simply think himself into the role.

In 2007, researchers reported in the journal Early Human Development that children who had received no DHA in formula or breast milk during the first 17 weeks of life had poorer visual acuity at age 4, and did worse on language tests showing verbal IQ, than those who fed breast milk.

If Neandertals did have the capacity for symbolic thinking — crucial for using drawings or language to represent ideas and objects — that ability may have developed at least 500,000 years ago in an ancestor shared with humans, the two research teams propose.