Sentences with phrase «more explanation do»

Not exact matches

I can't say for sure, but I do find Weaver's explanation more persuasive than Bamford's.

The more plausible explanation for the stock market's success this year has less to do with Trump, and more to do with the woman he just declined to reappoint as chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen.

The nation boasts immense human diversity, with limbs and muscles of all sizes, so race or genetic characteristics aren't a valid explanation, said Anirudh Krishna, professor at Duke University, and co-author of a 2008 paper called «Why do some countries win more Olympic medals?»

«Our company employs more females, African Americans and Hispanics than most tech companies do,» one participant offered as an explanation for awarding their employer a passing grade on diversity.

The more nuanced explanation for retail's popularity among investors has less to do with Manhattan market fundamentals and more to do with the global flow of capital.

For a more in - depth explanation of how this can be done, check out this blog article, which is completely dedicated to explaining how to tailor your content to suit individual personas.

More importantly, you do not give an explanation because you do not have one.

It's made me more comfortable that I don't need a supernatural explanation for the way things are.»

Or more likely and simply explanation is that he just doesn't exist.

In fact, you don't even have to have studied psychology to give the explanation I did, which makes the proposal that it was a god who was nagging at Darwin all the more embarrassing, from my point of view.

If Romney doesn't explain to people why things will be okay if those policies are implemented, then all people will have is Obama's explanation that Romney will take away your health care and retirement (and trade in Granma's health care for coupons) so that Romney's Bain friends can make even more money.

Yep, but if you don't have any more variables than I have and you reject logic and you just make up explanations that have no supporting evidence your chances of being right are even less than mine.

This particularly needs explanation because Pilate would not have hesitated to slaughter bystanders if he thought it necessary to preserve order (he did so more than once).

The role of the divine is much pondered» the furiously indignant Cain gets no more explanation for why his sacrifice was rejected here than he did in Genesis» but the actions are all committed by humans.

Contemporary methodology has not discontinued these methods in its new understanding of history, but has merely shifted them more decidedly from ends to means It is true that the «explanation» of an event or viewpoint does not consist merely in showing its external causes or identifying the source from which an idea was borrowed.

Why do you people think that if an explanation can not given, claiming «god did it» makes any more sense than claiming «Bigfoot did it»?

Without pretending to exhaust the explanations, let me therefore add one more, which occurred to me while doing research on American religion in what John Higham called «the tribal twenties» and the dreary aftermath in the 1930s.

For, objectively speaking, according to his explanation a special act does not express the person's inner being any more than his other actions do; it does reveal his inner being more than other actions do, but this is due to its being received in a certain way by others.

Well, while more explanation of why something is evidence might be helpful, we don't have an established set of criteria as to what constitutes «evidence».

You say your god has turned against this world due to the evil within it... so then your god is not so caring after all or it simply does not exist (the more likely explanation).

Most of the explanations of Romans 9 I have read from Calvinists seem to be completely off track and do more to undermine the character of God than glorify it.

If you can't understand my explanation above and see that as an attempt at discrediting, without pointing out where exactly it's wrong, then there isn't much more I can do, other than hope one day you'll learn something.

The only possible explanation for that is that Mr. Campolo does more writing and speaking than reading and listening.

Today, more than three hundred years after John Locke spelled out his theory that the greatest good is served by each person following his or her own best interests, some economists and politicians are still trying to bend and stretch this outmoded «explanation» of life to fit social realities that say it just doesn't meet human needs today.

BUT HE WHO DOES THE TRUTH COMES TO THE LIGHT, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God There can't be more clear nor simpler explanation than that!

In a way, every new scientific discovery is a proof that we're headed towards a time when we don't need God as an explanation any more.

If you are really able to do more than «chip away» at cosmology and evolution, then provide a superior explanation of «divine orchestration» in at least same the level of detail as natural processes you are calling inadequate.

«Theistic evolution» is possible when you have a definition of God where you insist that he had a hand in things even though there isn't any evidence that he did, and even when his involvement would complicate things more than a simple, natural explanation.

The author does assume a prior knowledge of Therese, and some instances of her life are mentioned with little explanation, but this is not off - putting; rather it makes the reader want to learn more.

Naturalistic explanations have already been successful enough in explaining natural order to conclude with assurance that the argument from design simply does not carry much weight any more.

Do we not have to turn to the previously discussed psychological explanation (i.e., I am more anxious — an unpleasant state which I wish would end — during the first trip) in order to account for this phenomenon?

This is true, not because it contains, as it does, more exalted religious ideas than any other book, or expresses them better (this would be an explanation of the Bible's superiority, not of its uniqueness), but because it stands in a unique relation to some unique and supremely significant events.

This explanation makes much more sense of the surrounding context of Matthew 20:16 and 22:14 than does the contrived theological distinction between a general call and an effectual call.

Moreover, I am again willing to grant that these explanations are basically defensive while the explanation available to process theism — that God can not unilaterally do more — is not.

A much more plausible explanation is to assume that Plantinga has not significantly modified his position for the same reason that Griffin has not significantly modified his position: because he doesn't believe that any of the criticisms leveled against his position thus far merit such modification.

Most times I do so I find the explanations not much more than a cover story.

What's more, he says, occasionally the person will do something that defies explanation.

The argument that a solely persuasive God is more powerful than the traditional coercive God is in some tension with the explanation that God does not intervene coercively to prevent excess evil because he does not have the power.

Any being capable of designing something as complex as a sensory organ like an eye is surely even more complex itself; does this not require further explanation?

(4) In the absence of an explanation why God does not use more coercive power and is not more effective in his persuasion we may as reasonably conclude that there is a great evil persuasive power behind phenomena in the world as that there is a great power persuading toward the good.

My own belief gives me an explanation (sort of) for stuff existing, but it really isn't any more provable / likely than «um, we don't know» and any religion's «genesis myth» has pros and cons.

But of course a correlation between observations does not demonstrate causality; the more likely explanation for Dr. Person's correlative data is that heightened sexual fantasies stimulate the search for sexual experiences.

Books upon books, complex explanation on top of complex explanation, lies upon lies, when the simpler and much more elegant solution is that there are no gods, and none are needed — it's all just science we do not fully undrestand — yet!

He is the «depth» of things, as he is the «depth» of ourselves; but he is more than that — he is himself, yet always himself in relation to that which he is doing, loving, using for the world whose final explanation he is.

Clitophon thinks that this must find its explanation either in the fact that Socrates does not know more, or else that he is unwilling to communicate more.

And even if it were the case that in the past we spent less time defending and discussing specific dogmas, there seems to me to be a much more plausible explanation than «no one really used to care about dogma», which is this: it's not that we didn't care about dogma, but rather that the truths of faith have come under unprecedented scrutiny and attack in the modern period, not least fromdissenters within the Church, so it has become essential that we do talk about what we actually believe.

If a simpler explanation exists the burden is on the persons supporting the more complicated explanation to show that the simple explanation does not work.

But the best explanation I can come up with is that it simply doesn't exist, and that its far more important for humanity to take care of its own business than wait for some divine intervention that just won't come.

I do know some of the arguments for why the flood is scientifically implausible, but I think there are alternative explanations for where all the water came from (and where it is today) that might make it more plausible.

This is Vega's explanation for why they don't use more organic ingredients (you can find this on the FAQs page of their website):