Sentences with phrase «logical sense of»

Don't try to justify those changes, but try to make good logical sense of them.

There is no evidence that mere human intelligence was selected for in order to make logical sense of the very cosmos which spawned us.

And since I can make no logical sense of yesterday's market action I just view it with distant intellectual curiosity.

When the jokes here do work, that gung - ho attitude means they work with a deliriously logical sense of illogic, or maybe that sentiment should be reversed — a deliriously illogical sense of logic.

«Kingsman» doesn't get too caught up in trying to make any logical sense of it all, and that's perfectly fine, because in the age of the overserious spy film (see: Daniel Craig's Bond, the Jason Bourne series, etc.), this is exactly the bold, silly kick up the ass that the genre needed.

The final season of Justified is charged with a logical sense of elegiac melancholy.

Not exact matches

Fear holds us back, but most often we're afraid of things that don't make logical sense.

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.»

And there's no good explanation I can think of for why this change makes any logical sense.

Of course, even though this makes logical sense, I still feel it every time stocks go down.

Professional traders do not waste their trading capital, they use it only when the risk reward profile of a trade setup makes sense and is logical.

Does that make any kind of logical sense???

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.

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

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 discourse.

And it has never made sense to me no matter how many times I've tried to squeeze my logical square brain into the vacuous round hole of literal, fundamentalist bible interpretation.

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.»

I know that Christians are told to have faith that some day all of this will actually make logical sense, but you can't help but notice that it's the Bible itself that gives us this reassurance about itself.

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!

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.

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.

You consistently show yourself to be dishonest, and completely void of any logical sense.

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

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.

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

At the time Whitehead was writing Process and Reality idealist systems were under attack on methodological grounds, first by C. E. Moore as violating the prescriptions of common sense, then by the school of logical positivism represented chiefly by Schlick, Carnap, and Ayer.

The essential government propaganda industries, Newspeak and Doublespeak, exist to make syntactical and logical sense out of three slogans that dominate the book and the world it describes: «WAR IS PEACE,» «FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,» «IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.»

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.

To demand that what we say about God be verifiable by direct observation or by an airtight process of logical deduction makes no more sense than to demand this of statements about Millard Fillmore.

While it makes beautiful, logical sense --(you get to keep Hell, and a merciful picture of God to boot) what would this look like?

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.

Beginning with the doctrine of creation makes sense from a systematic, logical point of view, after one has worked out the ramifications of faith for the big issues of life from within a posture of commitment.

Russell is perhaps best known for his theory of descriptions, for his hierarchy of logical types, and for his attempts to correlate empiricism and sense experience with what Sir Arthur Eddington came to call the «two worlds» doctrine of physics and common sense.

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.

It does not make logical sense to defame and slander others with an arsenal of Christian conviction when Scripture clearly renounces this.

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.