Sentences with phrase «not present your knowledge»

Heavy workload and time pressure result in development of a poor thesis which does not present your knowledge and depth of research!

Not exact matches

The greatest leaders, the most creative tacticians stand out not because they have more knowledge but because they are able when necessary to drop their preconceived notions and focus intensely on the present moment and all it has to offer.

When the information you were searching for is presented in a Google Knowledge Card, you don't need to click through because the information is right there in front of you (try typing in «donald trump age» and you'll see what I mean).

Similarly, if we had written a blog post explaining the Google Knowledge Graph based off of just one news outlet's understanding of the change, we could easily pass along incorrect information, or at the very least not present the entire scope of the story.

To me my knowledge at the present, we have no idea and won't really ever know, what primitive dna looks like because we do not have any way of getting a blood sample from millions of years ago.

Regarding our present scientific knowledge regarding the origin of the universe, or if there is an actual origin, the answer is «we don't know».

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

Now whatever is capable of knowing certain things can not have any of them in its own nature, for that which is present in it naturally would impede the knowledge of other things.

Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts in the history of science presents the idea that changes or increases in our understanding not only fill out gaps in previous knowledge, but at times bring about a reorganisation of the structure of the theories or paradigms by which previous ideas were organised and understood.

But triumphalists do not notice these possibilities or else they underestimate them, and so their language and behaviour assume that false tone of self - assurance and superior knowledge which repels people of the present day and makes them distrustful and obstinate towards representatives of the Church's ministry.

The world is reaching a situation in which the present type and level of resource depletion and environmental pollution can not be continued indefinitely or for long without disastrous environmental hazards and resource shortage, according to present scientific knowledge.

Nature can not afford the spread of a life style as of the USA due to limits of resources, and pollution, at the present level of knowledge.

Living in the south, everyone has biblical knowledge, and can talk a good game... but the discipleship, the love, the need to serve Christ are not present.

There were sixty - five candidates for baptism, all neatly clad (so different from former appearance) and their faces beamed with delight... They were questioned, not only to ascertain their knowledge of scriptural truth, but also to ascertain, as far as possible, their apprehension of Christ as a living and a present Saviour.

Belief and faith is great if that gets you through but don't try to shoot down those who would present the facts so that our children can gain knowledge and be less ignorant.

Indeed, to the best of my knowledge Hartshorne does not explicitly link his position on creation with his position on relativity, contingency, and potentiality, as he does link the latter with his position on temporality.13 On the other hand, he does present other arguments against the traditional position, none of which seem tome to have any substance.

And no a belief does not mean actual knowledge, so when one proclaims a belief, it something that by definition can not be proven, so no I don't have to present evidence in order to declare a belief, but if one is saying outright that angels do not exist as being the absolute truth, then one should present evidence.

This event is not ontologically complete until he knows himself made present by me and until this knowledge induces the process of his inmost self - becoming.

As being can never be studied as an independent object, the history of metaphysical thought can not be without implications for the history of being:» [E] very science goes through a process of historical development in which, although the fundamental or general problem remains unaltered, the particular form in which this problem presents itself changes from time to time; and the general problem never arises in its pure or abstract form, but always in the particular or concrete form, determined by the present state of knowledge or, in other words, by the development of thought hitherto.

«For the inmost growth of the self is not accomplished, as people like to suppose today, in man's relation to himself, but... in the making present of another self and in the knowledge that one is made present in his own self by the other.»

However, as Schindler has suggested, self - consciousness could be understood as immanent in the present moment of experience as a nonthetic consciousness which would not amount to knowledge in the sense of objectification.

At present, we have quite detailed knowledge about molecules, ions, atoms, elementary particles, electromagnetic waves, electric fields and all kinds of material processes, but we are still not yet able to say what «matter» ultimately is like.

well just thinking about these wars in the muslim / mid-east world over religious differences (which may reflect mental states in many ways) in a world where most realize that living in the present moment is best way to happiness and being in the moment in non-strife and awareness through the teachings of masters such as found in the buddhist, taoist, zen, etc., etc., etc. spriritually based practices of religious like thought and teachings, etc. that to ask these scientifically educated populace whom have access to vast amounts of knowledges and understandings on the internet, etc. to believe in past beliefs that perhaps gave basis and inspiration to that which followed — but is not the end all of all times or knowledges — and is thus — non self - sustaining in a belief that does not encompass growth of knowledge and understanding of all truths and being as it is or could be — is to not respect the intelligence and minds and personage of even themselves — not to be disrespected nor disrespectful in any way — only to point out that perhaps too much is asked to put others into the cloak of blind faith and adherance to the past that disregards the realities of the present and the potential of the future... so you try to live in the past — and destroy your present and your future — where is the intelligence in that — and why do people continually fear monger or allow to be fear — mongered into this destructive vision of the future based upon the past?

If this aspect differed in kind in the case of Jesus from every other member of the species man, then in the present state of our knowledge it would seem impossible rightly to describe Jesus as a man.17 It may be the case that most Christians (and most Christian theologians) in most centuries have accepted this claim: but most have not shared either our modern sensitivity to the difference between history and mythology or our concern for the principles of logic.

Of course, this «more» to human and cosmic reality need not be transcendent in any sense other than «beyond»: beyond our present ordinary awareness and knowledge, perhaps in principle beyond purely scientific avenues of knowledge.

Many traditionalists would claim that if God can know only the past and present but not the future (save in terms of possibilities — not in terms of what will actually happen), then God does not have perfect knowledge.

The historical problem presented by the Gospels is, then, not the problem of determining whether the character of the early Christians, their faith, and the exigencies of their life and work have colored and overlaid the facts of Jesus» teaching and life, but is, rather, the problem of determining just how we should use our knowledge of this fact in our efforts to get back to the so - called historical Jesus» own words and life.

I love it when stupid theists criticize science for not being able to determine certain truths, and then present «inner sense» as a method of acquiring knowledge.

In his recent book, Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity, he offers «four benefits» of mortality: interest and engagement, suggesting that adding, say, twenty years to the human life span would not proportionately increase the pleasures of life; seriousness and aspiration, proposing that the knowledge that our life is limited is what leads us to take life seriously and passionately; beauty and love, presenting the idea that it is precisely their perishability that makes, for instance, flowers beautiful to us, just as the coming and going of spring makes that season all the more meaningful; and, finally, virtue and moral excellence, by which he means the virtuous and noble deeds that mortality makes possible, including the sacrifice of our own life for a worthy cause.

The epistemology of process is not empirical, if by empirical is meant the absolutization of the present, for the basis of knowledge in our view is the future, Of course, in order to know the future, one must know the present and the past, but not in and for themselves, since the present and the past do not point to themselves but to the future.

This epistemology produces a historicization of reason because reason attains knowledge not by going outside time but by incarnating itself in time, since knowledge as future can only be attained through the present.

in Our Knowledge of God [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1939], p. 23, writes: «The doctrine of the imago dei has its basis in the fact that our existent human nature presents itself to us, not as a simply bad thing, but as a good thing spoiled.»

Although the results of the studies in the psychology and philosophy of religion have not yet led to unanimous agreement among the scholars, the present - day knowledge of the place of religion in human experience is firmer than ever before.

The reason for this is simple: as far as our present knowledge and methodological resources go, the gospel of John is not a source of knowledge of the teaching of Jesus.

Given the present state of our knowledge about the etiology of homosexual orientation, it is more honest to say that we simply do not know with certainty and specificity what factors are involved in the genesis of one's sexual identity and corresponding sexual orientation.

At any given cosmic present, as determined by the divine simultaneity, some, but not all, of the actual entities have reached satisfaction.3 The satisfaction of no actual entity escapes some cosmic present, for at that time God prehends the datum and thereby increases his knowledge.

First, he distinguishes from classical empiricism a revisionary description of experience according to which sense perception is neither the only nor even the primary mode of experience, but is rather derived from a still more elemental awareness both of ourselves and of the world around us» (PP 78).6 On Ogden's analysis, both the classical and this first type of revisionary empiricism «assume that the sole realities present in our experience, and therefore the only objects of our certain knowledge, are ourselves and the other creatures that constitute the world» (PP 79) 7 With these «two more conventional types of empiricism» he contrasts a «comprehensive» type of revisionary empiricism distinguished from them by its consideration of the possibility (and then also by its claim) that the internal awareness it asserts together with the former revisionary type is «the awareness not merely of ourselves, and of our fellow creatures, but also of the infinite whole in which we are all included as somehow one» (PP 87, 80, 85).

Weak human nature will not let us believe in the promises of God with a confidence that purges from the soul the anguish of fear and unbelief, the Anfechtungen... Therefore, in Luther's discovery of justification the Christian was liberated from the self - imposed requirement to present a perfect mental attitude to God, to confuse belief with knowledge, faith with the direct intuition of an observed world.

• «the God for which we are arguing is not a God of the gaps, not a God who is brought in to paste over the gaps in our present scientific knowledge, which might be filled later as science progresses.

So the question can not be settled at the present stage of our knowledge.

If one who holds the subjectivist principle posits the reality of a world of actual entities spatially and / or temporally beyond the present moment of experience, and the reality of causal interaction among these entities, one does so solely on the basis of inference, not direct knowledge.

The Old and New Testaments do not contradict any present day scientific knowledge about the universe, proving that scripture did not come from men.

to madtown, Why Jesus was sent in Israel, because that place was part of the Roman Empire, the center of the worlds civilizatoon at that time, in the third century after Him, the Roman emperor, Constantine decreed that christianity was the official religion of the empire, and soo the teachings of Jesus inspired the whole empire, now the present Europe and the Middle East has prospered more than anywhere else in the world, The Americas was not even discovered yet by Columbus, With the prosperity of the empire was the growth of scientific knowledge that leads to what we are now, it happened because its part of Gods Will, History is its Reflectiom.

It was not at the level of pure thought, therefore, that the metaphysical dualism presented Descartes with difficulties in respect of mathematical knowledge of the physical.

Most critical method was predicated on students possessing a working knowledge of — if not a confessional commitment to — the Bible in its present form, a form that was then deconstructed by means of historical tools.

Knowledge of the present does not confer necessity upon it; foreknowledge of the future gives it no necessity (Boethius); knowledge of the past confers no necessity upon the past; for no knowledge and no apprehension has anything of its ownKnowledge of the present does not confer necessity upon it; foreknowledge of the future gives it no necessity (Boethius); knowledge of the past confers no necessity upon the past; for no knowledge and no apprehension has anything of its ownknowledge of the past confers no necessity upon the past; for no knowledge and no apprehension has anything of its ownknowledge and no apprehension has anything of its own to give.

Saying that somebody must have certain knowledge to believe in a concept is an obvious truth that does NOT present a false dichotomy between god belief and science..

Belief is right only when it points us in the right direction: to glorification of the true God, who promises not to give us a secret wisdom, but to be graciously present to us, even and especially where our vision and knowledge are weak.

This oral tradition formed the basis or main body of the evangelic tradition up to but not including the passion narrative; it was the common knowledge of Jesus as it circulated in Palestine during, and soon after, the lifetime of Jesus — «the report that spread all over Jewish Palestine, as you yourselves know, beginning in Galilee after «the baptism» which John preached» and continuing down to the present.

But again its function in the present context can not he primarily historical; or rather, and again, its historical value for us lies primarily in its contribution to our historical knowledge of inner Israel.