Sentences with phrase «if it effects cause»

what would define it as religion is if it effects cause, nature, and purpose of the universe» If you are a Theist then the statement above makes sense.

Not exact matches

If, on the other hand, I jump into the ocean I don't cause much of a ripple effect because the ocean is deep.

«Even if they did, or if Mr. Trump were able to pass a major infrastructure spending package, they would prove inflationary, causing the Federal Reserve to respond with a faster pace of monetary tightening that would offset the positive effect on growth,» the Economist Intelligence Unit report says.

As a first line of action, start healing the damage that was caused (if possible)-- post an apology on social media, broker a new deal with your vendors, give your customers a heads - up — do whatever is necessary is to preserve the company's reputation and minimize the effects to its bottom line.

With science showing sleep deprivation creates a host of negative effects, from decreased creativity to radically compromised mental performance (and that's not even getting into the physical problems it causes), attending to your body's need for sleep is always a good idea, but failing to get enough rest also exacerbates our tendency to get stressed out, so it's even more important to pay attention to if you feel your mental health is getting a little shaky.

It will take effect in 2020 only if it is ratified by more than 55 percent of nations, or nations that cause 55 percent of global emissions.

Plus, the effects of trust erosion compound if its cause is a repeated mechanism [5], like flash crashes.

The Pigou effect, as I am using the term, is simply the hypothesis that the real value of money rises under deflation, and an increase of real money balances under deflation — if sufficiently large — could cause higher demand growth.

A story, if broken down into the simplest form is a connection of cause and effect.

In extended hours trading, these announcements may occur during trading, and if combined with lower liquidity and higher volatility, may cause an exaggerated and unsustainable effect on the price of a security.

Now, the direct, short - term impact of pricing mistakes may be zero - sum, but the long - term effect can be negative, particularly if the mistakes cause people to alter their future behaviors in undesirable ways.

Mrs Williams also said: «If the tribunal is suggesting that there are places in which an individual does not enjoy the fundamental right to freedom of religious expression, this is a cause for concern and could have a chilling effect on freedom of belief and expression.»

Atheist reject the idea of a god and believe their view to be true or they would be agnostic unless they choose no stance at all of a god that of which would require unknowing of what the term «god» means so it would fall under a belief and since they can't prove that a god doesn't exist then by definition it requires faith for their view, meaning it would effect their view of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe if a god was proven to be true.

Belief in God would mean you (again, not you personally but in general) believe God has everything to do with the universe it can't be proven so requires faith but if God was proven to not exist it would effect your view of cause, nature, and purpose of the universe....

Your god truly is a vindictive thing if you are correct... now time for you to prove it theo... since I know ahead of time you can not show any cause and effect relationship, we'll just throw your nonsense ouit.

Either they necessitate a deceptive «God», e.g. creating starlight «in transit» which means that for some light the star that supposedly sent said light would never have actually existed, or they would cause effect that should be evident but are not, e.g. temporarily fast starlight would effectively cook many things, such as life on earth, if the required light (and attendant gamma radiation) were compressed into a significantly shorter time frame (think of the radiation from the apparent 13 billion years of the universe arriving at the same time, or even over a 1000 years).

If there was no «first cause» then there would be no effects to follow that cause, and thereby create a causal chain.

Then when I say «we don't know if everything is cause and effect» you go on a screed about how that is not supported by what we do know.

If you trip over a curb, it's an «accident» because you didn't intend to do it, but that «accident» is perfectly explainable by the laws of physics and the cause and effect of your step and the height of the curb and the speed of your body and all sorts of actual, measurable processes.

We could argue that the link between increased abortions and decreased crime is not one of cause and effect, and they would challenge us to come up with statistics to support our position, but if we were to grant the linkage while nevertheless disputing the morality of the trade - off we would not be in disagreement with them.

Even if God put in motion the process of evolution and natural cycles, we know that those natural cycles have a cause and effect that has nothing to do with the old testament version of storm interpretation.

«My notion would be that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence.

The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.

Thus if we are serious we must accept the fact that men plunge into violence, and we must try to limit the effects and remedy the causes of that violence.

But if it is so, then the question which process philosophers ask is only natural: «If the effect is precontained in its cause and, more generally, the future in the present, why is it not already herif it is so, then the question which process philosophers ask is only natural: «If the effect is precontained in its cause and, more generally, the future in the present, why is it not already herIf the effect is precontained in its cause and, more generally, the future in the present, why is it not already here?

If the author's argument is that all «effects» [such as the birth of the universe] must have a «cause» [i.e. «God»], then by that «logic» God must also have a cause.

When the Chinese dictatorship is replaced by a more humane regime» and one may reasonably think it is more a matter of when than if» the Christian proposal could have a world - transforming effect in aligning that society with the cause of human dignity.

If that is the case, then by the same logic of cause and effect, whatever agent caused it also had to have an agent which created it, ad infinitum.

This article's assertions fell apart with «If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent — separate and apart from the effect — that caused it.»

-- C. S. Lewis who went from atheist to Anglican felt that if the universe is just cause and effect, the unfolding of physical laws without creative or guiding actor, then nobody can criticize someone else for any action or belief, since all of it is inevitable and could not be any other way given the initial conditions.

«If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent»

If time didn't exist prior to that, cause and effect becomes undefined.

Confirmation bias is one problem, the other is absolutely lying about several scientific facts: «If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent — separate and apart from the effect — that caused it.»

If, on the other hand, we admit that causes do not fully determine effects, and that effects are in part self - decided, then the «I» that now decides was not fully determined by the previous «I» with its environment, and so on back to one's first state of awareness.

If all effects require a cause, then that means you have to have a cause for your god to exist, which you don't.

If this were the whole story, however, there would be no significant difference from the Aristotelian idea of a transfer of form, of causes making effects like themselves.

Ignoring 1 and 2 above, even if all effects must have a cause, and infinite causes were impossible, for that to prove God, there could not be an alternative cause.

If by the fundamental mechanism of union the elements of consciousness, drawing together, enhance what Is most incommunicable in themselves, it means that the principle of unification causing them to converge is in some sort a separate reality, distinct from themselves: not a «center of resultance» born of their converging, but a «center of dominance» effecting the synthesis of innumerable centers culminating in itself.

If eternity and necessity are essential attributes of God as the Primary Cause, so must they be attributes of His actions, which are His effects.

A cause and its effect do not always appear very similar: if a man writes a book, the book needn't look like the man.

In my opinion it takes more faith to live with the mystery, struggle to hold together all the opposites and seek to listen to the Holy Spirit for your own unique life's circumstances than it does to simply quote chapter and text as if the Christian walk is a predictable black & white / cause & effect existence.

But if, for the reasons outlined earlier in this chapter, the Easter message was already beginning to take shape in the minds of the disciples, of Peter in particular, the experience of seeing Jesus in his glorified state would have the effect of authenticating the Easter message and of causing the Easter faith to take possession of whoever heard it, and of those, in turn, who were convinced by the apostolic testimony.

If the entire created order is dependent for its existence upon his will, then it must be subject to his full control Such control of the creative process entails efficient causality, for the divine initiative must be prior to the outcome, and the effect must conform to its cause.

If we accept this understanding of Quantum Theory, we can see our universe as capricious, where on the most fundamental level everyday laws of cause and effect do not apply.

(We may add that if «mythological» means whatever can not be reconciled with the modern scientific view of the world with its closed system of cause and effect, then an eschatological act of God is either no act at all or else it is mythical in the above sense of that word.)

If we do not see an omnipresent God in the effect (the current world), how can we hope to see him in the cause?

If nature - in the words of Hans Kelsen - is viewed as «an aggregate of objective data linked together in terms of cause and effect», then indeed no ethical indication of any kind can be derived from it.

If, however, temporal atomicity requires a lapse of time in order to bring the effect into being, its causes are already past and gone before the effect arises.

It should be clear that, though a man may risk his life in a cause of sufficient importance, he sins gravely if he directly wills his own death as he goes in harm's way to give effect to that decision, and commits an egregious blasphemy if he promises on the Divine Name to do so.

For if one argues that past causes produce the effect, this purports to be a total explanation.