Sentences with phrase «logical sense in»

But even though all of this makes some logical sense in principle, its application can be quite troublesome.

The only logical sense in which there might be an «advantage» — and it is illusory — is in the retaining of samples that you PRESUME to be signal - rich (based on correlation) and dismissing of samples you PRESUME to be noise - rich.

Finding ways to make the indie audience's lives easier is a great way of making money and logical sense in a games market that is gaining market momentum.

However, sometimes films that feature such inconsistencies can still succeed as entertainment, despite making very little logical sense in terms of adhering to a set of tangible rules, whether real or concocted.

The main idea that drives this blog is that efficiency is the only goal that makes logical sense in health and fitness (or anything really, for that matter).

The move also made logical sense in that World Service journalists will soon be housed in the same «West One» building as other BBC journalists.

It makes all the logical sense in the world that Time, Inc., had to put the movement on its cover and co-opt it, for Time's investment in the «In God we trust» capitalism and institutions of our political - economic - mythical lives is not inconsiderable.

Not exact matches

It's a logical and smart move: all three have made climate action a priority at home and abroad, and in light of the international climate agreement reached in Paris last year, it makes sense to work together on this crucial issue.

«Mr. Green puts together suggestions of a serial entrepreneur that make clear sense, in a logical order, and are worth a thoughtful read by ANYONE wanting to make a success of their career in business.»

They like to ask questions like, «How do you know God exists» yet, logical proofs make no sense in their atheistic worldview.

Considering that this life is limited, and the next is eternal, that is one of the few things in their beliefs that make logical sense.

Actually, there are at least five or six logical fallacies in Pascal's wager, but there no sense in reciting them.

It makes no logical sense what so ever for someone that believes in ID to be working for NASA, and you make a very astute point.

It makes perfect sense that emotions can get in the way of logical thinking.

But that still does not change the fact that not belief can not equal belief in a logical sense.

In general, while appeal to or reliance upon one's own intuition (in some technically unspecified sense of the term) may satisfy the informal demands of many ordinary, nontechnical contexts, such intuitive conviction — however important heuristically to the individual inquirer — may be of no logical relevance to the job of satisfying the technical demands constitutive of some formal arena of discoursIn general, while appeal to or reliance upon one's own intuition (in some technically unspecified sense of the term) may satisfy the informal demands of many ordinary, nontechnical contexts, such intuitive conviction — however important heuristically to the individual inquirer — may be of no logical relevance to the job of satisfying the technical demands constitutive of some formal arena of discoursin some technically unspecified sense of the term) may satisfy the informal demands of many ordinary, nontechnical contexts, such intuitive conviction — however important heuristically to the individual inquirer — may be of no logical relevance to the job of satisfying the technical demands constitutive of some formal arena of discourse.

For example, if what you say in a public debate makes more «sense» than what Driscoll says, then you're more than likely to gain support from the masses because your stance is more logical.

There can be no doubt that God makes decisions a propos of the disjunctive multiplicity of eternal objects; the difficulty is to establish in precisely what sense these divine decisions are distinguishable from the choices and calculations made by the Leibnizian deity Whitehead's dilemma seems to be this: on the one hand, the principle of classification is to be challenged by positing the primordiality of a world of eternal objects that knows «no exclusions, expressive in logical terms»; on the other hand, positing pure potentiality as a «boundless and unstructured infinity» (IWM 252) lacking all logical order would seem to be precisely that conceptual move which renders it «inefficacious» or «irrelevant.»

No sense in discussing with such haters of the logical investors who sees Life for what it truly is,,,, not the kingdom domains of God!

(1) The concrete universal as the individual seen in conjunction with the thought structure implied in it, that which makes it an intelligible unity, is neither a naively conceived sense - object, nor an abstract logical universal.

One major reform that Hegel seems to have taken upon himself to effect is the production of a logical hierarchy of being that in a sense reverses the direction of abstraction of the Aristotelian logical hierarchy, i.e., that becomes more differentiated and «concrete» as it rises in generality and inclusiveness, rather than more empty and abstract.

I am not trying to convince you that I am right, either... I am just telling you that I don't know all the answers, but I do know that your answers are inconceivable in every logical and reasonable sense to me.

... I'm not sure this can be argued, mainly because it defies in logical sense whatsoever.

Neville you are right in that sense that the holy spirit or anti christ is not mentioned however the whole book is about the return of Jesus and the rise of the anti christ so it is logical to believe that the one being restrained is the man of sin or anti christ.I believe it is the anti christ and the restrainer is the holy spirit that is working through believers.It comes down to personal belief but This article covers all the options http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/who-is-the-restrainer.html What do you believe about preaching the Gospel to all nations and then the Lord will return at this point in time i believe there is around 2000 unreached people groups.brentnz

She knows the heart of God more than anyone else I know, and so while she may not know all the logical arguments or Scripture passages for various theological views, she senses rightness and wrongness in various theological positions.

But this «Therefore» doesn't make sense if you look a the end of chapter 11, where Paul has digressed in a lengthy doxology, which while it discusses intriguing mysteries of God and praises God, doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that we should present ourselves as living sacrifices to him, but if you read into that «οὖν» an «as I was saying earlier», you can see that before the doxology he issued an important warning in Romans 11:22 — if God is willing enough to be so severe as to cut of the natural branches (the Jews) he will certainly be willing to cut of the ones that have been grafted on (the Gentiles); Romans 12:1 - 2 is a very logical «therefore» to follow Romans 11:21 - 24.

But the more logical meaning of this coined word is justice for nature, and Jenkins and the writers he cites use it, approvingly, in that sense.

The subject of a proposition (the «logical subject») is in a sense a really existing subject.

which makes sense because it's logical thoughts that tend to result in us rejecting religious constructs as preposterous.

In this sense Whitehead is closer to a mathematical physicist than a pure mathematician (PW 47/43); the metaphysical system must be tested against experience and «depends for its truth upon its empirical verification, and not merely upon its logical criteria» (PW 51/47).

Any logical or mathematical structure in its pure sense as a potential for actualization of entities is an eternal object.

Likewise, there are logical steps that can lead one to conclude that Christianity is the MOST LIKELY explanation in a logical sense, and THEN take the step of faith into belief.

From a logical point of view, however, these two conceptions are not mutually exclusive, especially if Bultmann is right in regarding the true sense of myth as the disclosure of the «self - understanding of man», and the objectivizing imagery with its implied mythical world view the inadequate means for the expression of that sense.

It is to realize that the proposition regarded simply in terms of its logical subjects is vague in the sense of poly - valence and that to become what it is, the proposition requires valuation, i.e., an interpretive matrix.

What if you could understand more about yourself and the world, not because you find precise details to support every single logical deduction, but because in the wrestling with questions you sense you're not alone?

Yet beyond Whitehead's original harmless and humorous intent, there is a serious and sympathetic sense in which this designation captures precisely the spirit and intent of Russell's basic realistic and logical approach to philosophical questions in the era of G. E. Moore and the «common sense» approach to empiricism.

It would make more sense to reconceive initial subjective aims in terms of propositional feelings.9 The indicated logical subjects of the proposition can specify the standpoint (PR 283) whereas a pure eternal object can not.

We shall take our definition of logical possibility from Hartshorne himself: «A described state of affairs is «logically possible» if the description «makes sense» and involves no contradictions» (6: 593) What Hartshorne means by «makes sense» is never clearly spelled out in his arguments.

Consequently, if metaphysics can be established at all, it is only as a transcendental metaphysics, whose concepts and assertions are all purely formal and literal, rather than analogical, in the sense that they apply to all the different things within any single logical type whose meaning they explicate, not in different senses, but rather in the same sense.

Moreover, as we learned from our earlier discussion, he can occasionally speak even of a purely formal concept like «relativity» as being in a broad sense analogical, because it has systematically different senses as explicative of the meaning of different logical types.

If, on the contrary, they are taken strictly, in any one of the senses they have when applied solely to entities within a single logical type, he is equally justified in holding that they are then used in the same sense, and, therefore, are literal, not analogical, even when applicable to God.

This means that if terms like «relative» and «absolute» are taken in their broadest meaning, without regard to distinctions of logical type, Hartshorne has sufficient reason for saying that they can be used in systematically different senses and, therefore, are analogical, not univocal, in application to deity.

But, then, there is something else that he very well could say that would render his apparently contradictory statements consistent — namely, that, although such terms as «absolute» and «relative,» or «necessary» and «contingent,» explicate the meaning of more than one logical type, and thus apply to entities within these different types in correspondingly different senses, rather than in simply the same sense, they nevertheless apply to the different entities within any single type whose meaning they in some sense explicate, not in different senses, but rather in the same sense.

Thus Hartshorne holds that the term «feeling,» for instance, can be said to be analogical in this sense because, or insofar as, it applies to all entities of the logical type of individuals, including the unique individual God, but does so in suitably different senses to all the different kinds or levels of individuals, with its sense being infinitely different in its application to God (1962, 140).

When Hartshorne says that there is a sense in which analogical terms apply literally to God and, therefore, simply are literal in this application, what he means by «literal» is not that such terms apply to God in the same sense in which they apply to any other entity of the same logical type, this being, as we have seen, what he otherwise takes «literal» to mean.

Given His onto - logical primacy, in his uncreated Personality and his created body and soul, it would be il - logical, in the deepest sense of the term (i.e. contrary to the Logos), if the conception of the Creator's human nature were subject to that creaturely power of co-creation by which new creatures are brought into being, for this is a fundamental aspect of human procreation.

I will agree with the article that the two books don't seem to be compatible in any sort of logical sense.

This perspective is primarily concerned to eliminate nonsensical statements, or at least to distinguish between nonsense (non-verifiable) and sense (verifiable) Under the pressure of this demand by logical positivists, those who speak and write in the field of religion have not only felt called upon to clear up the fuzzy and meaningless jargon that often characterizes their field, but many have relinquished all terms that refer to the non-verifiable.

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.

External logical consistency, in the sense of logical non-contradictoriness.