Sentences with phrase «n't human imagination»

But hasn't human imagination grasped something real?

Not exact matches

No... essentially, God is the collective wild imagination of a bunch of scientifically ignorant humans who lived thousands of years ago and had absolutely no understanding of the world around them, so the only way they could possibly accept the way things were was to invent something that controlled any natural mechanism they didn't understand.

@Reality: one atheist's trashy imagination changes not even a dog, much less 4 billion human believers in God.

I don't have to use my imagination to know that we have endless evidence showing the evolution of many types of species, including humans.

Of course you didn't, or did you?!! Social Justice Jesus and Catholic Jesus share something in common: they are figments of human imagination.

Steve... that's not necessary... let's read those writings as the product of human imagination as it seeks the meaning and purpose of human existence and never forget...» to err is human»... anything more is to turn them all into demi - gods.

I mean, I know the Freudian superstition has been largely discredited since those heady days — his results were falsified, his psychotherapeutic sorcery doesn't work, and so on — but that doesn't alter the extraordinary hold his model of human motives still has over people's imaginations, or the bibulous excitement his ideas once inspired.

What our present situation suggests to Berger is not the demise of the religious but a necessary approach or methodology for theological reflection: «The theological decision will have to be that, «in, with and under» the immense array of human projections, there are indicators of a reality that is truly «other» and that the religious imagination of man ultimately reflects.»

Inspired human imagination can create beauty capable of evangelising those who are not aware of, or have lost sight of the supernatural.

Yet once granted that a genuine form of the mythical vision remains a possibility for civilized or historical man, and that myth itself is a creation of the human imagination, then it follows that a private myth is not only a possibility but is indeed the inevitable form by which a new or revolutionary myth will first appear in history.

And the universe that I did not create is much greater than human's imagination.

Today, Christians of integrity are thrown back upon the never reducible testimony of Scripture, Tradition and the divine Spirit — a testimony that defies possession, but also manifests an exceptional trust in the insight, imagination, reasonableness and spiritual courage of ordinary human beings when they are modest enough to ask for what they do not and can not possess.

A fifth dimension of the theological task is to present theological insights in ways that captivate the human imagination and emotions, not simply the intellect.

Moreover, objectivity does not rule thought; human imagination, valuation and social location govern how we identify and classify things — and thus, how we construct contexts for comparison.

Human solidarity is to be achieved «not by inquiry but by imagination, the imaginative ability to see strange people as fellow sufferers.

Not only is IVF the most obvious source of «fresh» and cryopreserved embryos, but the growing acceptance of embryo creation and disposal through IVF has shaped our moral imagination, rendering us less and less capable of seeing any relevant moral claims attending the early embryo as incipient human life.

Not by any stretch of the human imagination.

And that hypothesis would be that at least one god actually does exist, and was not the complete product of the human imagination, right?

Both I and St Thomas consider that the soul continues to exercise thought and understanding (and indeed will, which is intellectual appetite) after death, and, as St Thomas explains, this can not be in synergism with the imagination in the way it is during human life, but is made possible in ways God provides, and in this way the life of purgatory allows the purification that most people need, while the Saints pray for the living and the dead of whom God gives them knowledge through their vision of Him.

Religion should not be villified, but instead, appreciated for it being what it is; a natural extension of the human imagination.

Although he does not put it this way, and would likely object to my putting it so bluntly, Greeley's contention is that «the Catholic imagination» enables Catholics to be more human, or at least to give freer and fuller expression to their humanity.

Closer investigation, however, shows that imagination can not be altogether rationalized and treated as a meter instrument of human thought and willing.

The exceptional powers of sympathetic imagination and of literary expression possessed by this evangelist make his work the most effective of all as a human and, so to speak, secular approach to the «Jesus of History,» but it does not lie on the main classical line of development from the apostolic Preaching.

It does not require profound knowledge of human psychology or vast experience of life to understand why the imagination can never provide a basis for a common faith.

But even more daunting, his own productivity and protean creativity so defy the imagination that one might almost sympathize with the Shakespeare «deniers if the candidates put forward in his stead were not themselves such pathetic blue «blood epicenes» not to mention the fact that the achievement would still remain inexplicable coming from any human being, whatever the color of his blood.

Does the order of the timeless universe and your part in it reflective of the unfathomable Mind which makes and sustains it in ways human mentation can not perceive have any relevance to you or are you so bland and blah, so gray in your imagination that you are blocked by your senses from seeing and knowing the real nature of the present and the beyond which are One?

But, we also see in the parable of the Good Samaritan that the lack of moral imagination is a problem inherent to the human condition and not isolated to any of the Nordic states.

Science itself is incapable of making moral judgments and it is not really too wild a step of the imagination to think of a situation where scientific knowledge is valued more highly than human lives.

A fertilized egg is not a «human life» but not a surprise from someone that makes claims of the supernatural based on their imagination.

Animal brains don't have the cognitive capacity for «imagination» and abstract thinking like a human being.

As such it is always subject to errors that can be controlled but not governed entirely by practical and / or socially established evaluative or critical methods.18 The indispensable factor of interpretation in the dynamic processes of semiosis even leads to the idea that there is a generic form of imagination in physical becoming, in addition to a primary or radical form in human perception, a consideration that would indeed justify calling creativity the category of the ultimate, just as Whitehead maintains.

In its history a few particular human heroes, kings, ecclesiarchs, and saints stood forth very prominent, overshadowing the imagination with their claims and merits, so that not only they, but all who were associated familiarly with them, shone with a glamour which even the Almighty, it was supposed, must recognize and respect.

... that no matter how wide the perspectives which the human mind may reach, how broad the loyalties which the human imagination may conceive, how universal the community which human statecraft may organize or how pure the aspirations of the saintliest idealist may be, there is no level of human moral or social achievement in which there is not some corruption of inordinate self - love.

Clarification... I did not say they were BASED on human imagination, but rather that I believe there is much in the bible that is the product of such.

As Stratford Caldecott has written in the latest number of the Chesterton Review (p. 1), «every civilisation is the product not only of the human imagination but of a religious worldview.

Isn't it easier by far to conclude that David is a mythical King Arthur type than it is to believe that the human religious imagination would dream up a crucified Messiah?

If God is not like what we have been taught, then when we declare, «God does not exist,» we are not denying the God who does truly exist, but the god who is nothing more than a figment of human imagination, philosophical speculation, sociological superstition, and religious wish - fulfillment.

But legal systems as such do not produce anything that corresponds to the biblical sensitivity which forcefully enjoins against the source of all violence, namely, the realm of thought and contemplation, the intangible but critically powerful world of human imagination.

The atheist stakes all on the proposition that God is just a figment of the human imagination, a name invented by prescientific man to explain what he could not understand.

One literally can not imagine a limit to the human imagination.

One literally can not imagine a limit to the human imagination» @Chad «very true, of course that doesn't mean that Abraham Lincoln wasn't real... Blanket statements are pretty worthless when evaluating the historicity of a particular claim (which is why anti-theists tend to stick to that)»

The vivid imagination and the sharp observation of men and nature that marked his mind; his acquaintance with common speech and his joy in the use of proverbs; indeed, his capacity to express in creative speaking with a skill that only a poet and genius possesses the whole range of human emotions from awe in the presence of the numinous to the feelings of the body — all are reflected in his sermons (as also in the commentaries, his work of the lecture room), not consistently, of course, and not every time, yet most impressively in the Church Postil Sermons, one of the products of his exile on Wartburg Castle, written in order to furnish to the preachers of the Reformation examples of Biblical preaching.

In theory, the answer should only be bounded by the limits of human physicality, imagination, and cruelty, and as such not really fit for publication on a family website.

Obviously this is a pretty broad question, and I don't care if these are primary sources, to collaborative works by modern historians, to historical fictions (as I'm sure much of this detail will be left to the imagination as not much evidence will remain), but I'm looking for how humans ran societies, and the issue they dealt with, on a day to day basis, because people live on a day to day basis, and don't, like historians, summarize a decade in a couple of pages of writing.

Academic research is curiosity driven, not market driven, and responds to the search for knowledge and understanding in areas as diverse as health, culture, social constructs, astronomy, education, economics, particle physics... a list of topics as diverse as the human imagination.

The answers, according to Fox, will come from not only an examination of the science but also the culture of Mars and its place in the human imagination.

But it will provide remarkable vindication of the power of human imagination, combined with rigorous logic and technological know - how, to uncover hidden worlds that even half a century ago could not have been conceived.

From the psychology and neuroscience around play, creativity, dreaming and sleep, we can as easily derive a picture of human cognition that doesn't recoil from the buzzing, blooming demands of everyday life, but exults in using imagination, stories, abstraction and metaphor to comprehend the world.

Having not enough real contact with somebody the human's imagination starts to work trying to compensate the missing information.

«Imagination does not become great until human beings, given the courage and strength, use it to create.»