Sentences with phrase «not by proof»

Indeed, in the landmark study «The District Role in Instructional Improvement,» Susan Fuhrman, Thomas B. Corcoran, and Catherine Belcher found that professional development is characteristically driven not by proof or evidence, but by «whims, fads, opportunism, and ideology.»

This is man's time to learn to live by faith, and not by proof.

Every step forward by humankind were taken that way, not by proof, regardless whether it related to God or science or any other facet of experience.

Not exact matches

That said, it is not illegal — indeed, it is recommended — to keep track of expiration dates and gently remind employees they need to present new proof of work eligibility by those dates.

The old adage «it's not what you know, it's who you know» is more powerful than ever today, and you can get to know the «right» people by leveraging social proof.

But that's not the case in Arizona, which requires businesses to use E-verify, a system in which businesses electronically verify that the documentation presented by a potential employee has matching information between the name and the social security number (securing proof of eligibility to work).

«This was a problem because not only did we believe that the Russians knew this, but that they likely had proof of this information, and that created a compromise situation — a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the Russians,» she said.

When a Halifax contractor needed a loan to help fund a large construction job, for example, he was rejected by his bank for not having adequate proof of income.

It will be such a relief to find proof that nice guys of either gender finish first, not last — that the values you hold dear are of value in the business world too — and that not only can you champion earth - centered eco-friendly business practices, but that you can profit handsomely by doing so.

«If you assume that for many years China has been misallocating investment (by which I simply mean that the resulting increase in productivity generated by the investment was less than the correctly calculated debt - servicing cost)...» How about not «assuming» and offer proof?

Proof of work is not only used by the bitcoin blockchain but also by ethereum and many other blockchains.

First, no matter what anybody tells you (people don't want to believe that we're influenced by the crowd), social proof is hugely important in fund raising.

Anytime a user wants to execute a smart contract or send ether to another user on the network, there needs to be confirmation and recordation of such event — such task is not executed by a centralized server or company per se, but by thousands (and growing) of computers around the world — known as Proof - of - work (PoW).

The Conservatives were quick to use this as proof that they were on track to post a surplus in 2015 - 16, despite a warning by the Department of Finance that early fiscal results are not reliable in forecasting results for the year as a whole.

Bitcoin originated (and remains) as a public - interest non-profit project by a programmer (who's identity is not known) who wanted to create a tamper - proof private non-state currency.

One of the fairly fundamental rules brokers need to abide by is to «know their client» but, because they make things extra easy during the joining process, they usually don't get all of the personal ID or proof of address details they need to make sending money back to you legal from their end.

Netanyahu argued that the new files constituted proof that Iran can not be trusted, and that President Trump should scrap the nuclear deal with Iran on May 12, when he is facing a deadline imposed by US law to decide whether to keep lifting sanctions on Iran as the deal requires.

Like Bitcoin, MintChip does not require individual distinguishing proof; not at all like Bitcoin, it is upheld by a physical cash, the Canadian dollar.

The commercial cleaning industry may not be a recession proof industry, but it has been resilient, and has emerged, not much scarred by tough...

I'm thinking that, unless Vitalik subtly managed to telepathically hack everyone's brains so buyers would participate in the pre-sale in an organized fashion, it would appear that a lot of Ether — enough Ether to move markets or, if the system migrates to proof - of - stake, enough to play a meaningful role in determining consensus on a block - by - block basis — was sold to not a lot of people.

Called proof - of - stake, or «consensus by vote,» the idea has been implemented, however, not at the scale intended by ethereum.

If this trend is anything to go by, then CBA's results may be proof that «if it ain't linked to pay, it ain't going to happen.»

Hence science can not be proof for faith, because faith relies on infallibility and constancy, and science relies on the belief that there's always something more to be learned because we * don't * understand it all yet by a long shot.

Comments made by one Republican idiot is proof to you that there is not one single person on the political right who is decent?

@ John, And by the way, I don't required proof for everything but I do require evidence for everything.

@sciper: ok so you're saying that faith, which requires no proof works well with science that requires not only proof, but is only accepted if challenged by peers and tested over and over again... sure they get along great.

The story of a resuurection is not proof of anything, as the story you've been told since birth was NOT recorded by anyone who was there, rather it was FINALLY written down 2 generations after the so - called «fact&raqunot proof of anything, as the story you've been told since birth was NOT recorded by anyone who was there, rather it was FINALLY written down 2 generations after the so - called «fact&raquNOT recorded by anyone who was there, rather it was FINALLY written down 2 generations after the so - called «fact».

It's just a belief by you and that is fine, but it is not proof.

Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god.

The proof is in the pudding so to speak, since man was created by God in His image, there is within every person the knowledge of God.Standard equipment.In order to become an atheist you first have to lie yourself past your inner knowledge of God.You have to ignore your life, your spirit, your environment and the whole of creation.That takes a lot of lying to oneself, and you have to buy into a lot more lies to get there.This is not made up, it is a part of the process that ultimately allows the created to deny the creator, God.Deep down every atheist knows they are a liar, but as with any repeated sin the suppressed truth gets farther away, and harder to recognize.God bless

Not by physical proof so to speak, but by faith.

«If you will turn the table of the burden of proof you have to agree with me that the universe was created by the great pink unicorn with golden ears, because you can not disprove that such a creature with unlimited power exists.»

Personally, I feel that if there is a god, and he wants me to believe he exists, he can come over here and tell me himself, I don't accept the Bible as «proof» of anything, because it is self - contradictory and appears to be heavily influenced by the governing culture of the time.

By saying God avenges his Prophet means he was / is beloved of God, he will not tolarate and our Islamic history is Proof.

Books written by believers are not proof of anything.

It was written by many people over the span of hundreds of years, it is tribal rules from the infancy of our development and arguably is not a good book at all but full of hatred, spite and unspeakable violence, and you arent allowed to use «faith» as your proof of existence... faith is nothing less than the throwing away of reason i.e. belief without evidence.

He is not suggesting by that it is proof the historical document of concern is true, rather, he is advising that method — arguing from silence — should not be used to refute historical documents.

The fact that it can not be measured is what qualifies it as supernatural and so your insistence that it be measured is closer to a symptom of mental illness than my assurance that you will never attain proof and that your only hope of experiencing the same phenomenon is to submit yourself to the experience of it by whatever path you feel «calls you».

You can't by wishful thinking, or an ontological proof, or by any means at all make it real if it is not.

Most of us exhibit faith by not demanding proof in our everyday lives.

I do apologize because I do not have first hand proof of the affair that happened with an Emergent Pastor and the woman in his congregation nor the Mars Hill seminary student situation but it was told to me by a very reliable ground zero source and from the same source about both.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

You may not know this, but lots of god believers actually point to an old book, which was obviously written by people promoting a religious idea, as proof of what their god said.

However, it is not proof, since it is also possible for the universe to have assembled itself by chance... since it has eternity to roll the dice until it happens to create all we experience.

«matt — just because we can use science and reason to explain natural events doesn't mean there isn't a god, case in point, rainbows, a sign given by god to Noah can be explained by science but is still a promise made by god» But thats not proof of anything.

Everything requires proof, or, by your standards, it isn't true.

Bob, Since we (USA) have never tried to live by the gtolden rule, I guess thats proof that it doesn't work.

He will not require not merely that the new knowledge be used as the foundation of the proof, but that the very spirit and atmosphere of the new knowledge enter in such a way into thedemonstration of God's existence, that the complexities and confusions of human thought engendered by the new knowledge shall be resolved in harmonious unity in the postulate of God's existence, nature, and relation to created being.

There were objections made against these «proofs» like the one made by Kant who noted that one can not argue from finite causes to the Infinite Cause, because from the finite all one gets is the finite.

This may be partly because the moderns had some success in undermining confidence in the classic proofs by their criticism without winning any lasting confidence in their own, but the main cause is not any defect in the proofs for the existence of God, at least in the classic proofs, but the general discredit which has fallen upon all systems of thought which ante-date the last century.