Sentences with phrase «see the logic for»

So in addition to the surefire video sales Never Land will make, add the theatrical gross of around $ 60 million, and you'll see the logic for Disney to put a film of this caliber in cinemas last winter.

One can see the logic for the individual: if a Range Rover attracts the best possible mate, it makes sense to continue to drive one (preferably a new one) right up to the last moment till they are banned or taxed out of existence.

If you want to claim that if Nic is correct, then previous IPCC estimates were not exaggerated, I would like to see your logic for this conclusion.

Not exact matches

«The world class sees money for what it is and what it's not, through the eyes of logic.

The former opera singer then slayed Harris - Perry's logic, point for point, laying out what he sees as the differences between slavery and «hard work.»

That even our legislators can see through the barrage of well - intended criticism and understand that making it easier for small business owners to raise investment capital is a clear win for logic — and for long - term change.

Once China began the rebalancing process, I added, demand for iron ore had to collapse, and I could say this with full confidence not because I had disc drives filled with data and sophisticated correlation models that proved my case, but simply because this was the logic of the investment - driven growth model, and we had seen this same logic work its way many times before.

I still see the logic of buy - and - forget for certain kinds of portfolios, particularly if you want to be a stock picker for whatever reason and yet you only have limited time, interest, or application.

«I'd question the logic of running into a trade deal with a president who sees trade less as a means of achieving mutual prosperity and more an instrument of war,» Sam Lowe, a trade expert at the Centre for European Reform think tank, told the Guardian.

Atheism allows people to think for themselves, to see reason and logic.

You cant debate God... you cant use logic to explain God... You cant use your small finite mind to try and explain away an infinite God... Man is flesh and blood but man has a spirit and some things can only be received and revealed thru spirit... And what you do nt see is actually more real than what you can observe with your five senses... And BTW I did nt say religion i said God... Religion is man made tradition... God is real... develop a personal relationship with the one who created you and gave you life... God has a purpose for your life...

Trust me, it's far more work trying to justify a delusion and rationalizing why what you believe isn't consistent with what you see in the real world than having one answer for all the questions you people flail about trying to answer and be able to rely on simple logic and facts to conclude there is no god.

I'm not even saying that it isn't worth reading and studying, but let's at least display basic logic and see it for what it is... the work of man.

We will see why later in this series on Calvinism, but for now, let us continue to follow the Calvinistic logic.

That pathetic excuse for logic that you just read in my comment, that's exactly what I see in yours.

All of this is to say that to see the story as conveying an experience of believing or «belief in action» is to see it as very close indeed to the parable form, for, as we noted in our comments on the parable of the Wedding Feast, the implied question was, On what logic — that of merit or of grace — do you actually live your life?

Just as the seed must learn to see beyond the world of the seed, beyond the forms and objects found there, so reason must learn to see beyond its world, beyond its logic, beyond the forms and objects found in it, for its «Other» and Ground.

For all of your so - called «logic», which you seem inordinately proud of, it's flabbergasting to see that you can not grasp this simple idea.

In our time, we are seeing the diminishment, if not the death, of logic as a compelling force for persuasion.

One of the things I wish I could see more of is people holding members of their own camp a little more accountable for faulty logic and diatribes on this board.

I have not seen any support, nor any logic for that matter, for any claims made on this comment section by anyone else yet it is the Christians you zero in on.

Logic of this sort would result in surrendering all God's creation to pagans and atheists - leaving nothing for Christians to use in worshiping the God who created all things for His pleasure (see Revelation 4:11).

Since you supposedly see beauty in god's creations and not in these animals I can only imagine the twisted logic you have for how these animals fit into your creation scheme.

(For a defense of postmortem grace, see Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation, chapter 5; see also Kyle Blanchette and Jerry L. Walls, «God and Hell Reconciled,» in God and Evil, ed Paul Copan, et al.)

11 See Charles Hartshorne, The Logic of Perfection (La Salle: Open Court, 1962): 245 - 246, 253, 262; Philosophers Speak of God (Chicago: University Press, 1953): 479; A Natural Theology for Our Time (La Salle: Open Court, 1967): 107, 112; Schubert Ogden, «The Meaning of Christian Hope,» Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 30 (l975): l61; «The Promise of Faith,» in The Reality of God and Other Essays (New York: Harper, 1963): 224f; John B. Cobb, Jr., A Christian Natural Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965): 63 - 70.

The focus of its curriculum in the seventeenth century and well into the eighteenth was logic — not formal logic as we understand the subject, but the art of reasoning and living well, and even the introduction of Cartesian logic in the 1680s was seen as a simplified way of discovering certainty and praised for its «use in the affairs of life.»

Well, let's just see how well you can use your keen «reason» and «logic» to search for your «empirical evidence».

It really clears up a lot about as to why you are unable to see how your own arguments are defeated by your own logic as well as your extreme hatred for anyone having a viewpoint other than yours.

To further this they developed the theological tools necessary for building that fence (see pilpul logic or Talmudical hermeneutics).

Besides, in a rhetoric ruled by a logic, testimony even conceived as a relation of transpired facts, occupies necessarily an inferior place, for it shows the dependence of the judgment and of the judge with regard to something exterior: on the first level, the things spoken by another, and on the second, things seen by him.

See for example, Hartshorne, Charles, The Logic of Perfection (La Salle, Illinois: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1973), and Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984).

And that's what's exciting because you see, if it weren't for faith, when all logic said it's time to quit, we pursued.

In official party and state rhetoric liberation meant both freedom from capitalism and militarism (and thus from fascism and imperialism, since the first two were presumed to lead by the logic of history to the second two) and freedom for socialism and communism (the one seen as a stage in the transition to the other).

@ huh — It is very easy for a rational thinking person to see the logic in my statement — they might not agree, but there is logic.

But for a common person i see that the logic of saying that resurrection of Jesus does not prove that Jesus was God is totally flawed.

The coherence of the argument (not a closed one, like a system of logic, but open, like a method or key to progressive research) is such that I believe only solid, positive reasons can lead to its rejection; and for my part I can see none that is adequate.

Your statement kind of reminds me of Nancy Pelosi and her twisted logic that said pass the bill for gazillions of dollars and then we will read it, and you see how nice that ended.

Martog, that is the poorest excuse for logic I've ever seen.

For all of those that seek logic over faith and evidence over ignorance, see the address below for the study on prayer following coronary bypass surgeFor all of those that seek logic over faith and evidence over ignorance, see the address below for the study on prayer following coronary bypass surgefor the study on prayer following coronary bypass surgery.

Amen.The thing is too many people from both sides try to disprove the other, Scientist (well some) will say there is no God Ala Hawkings here and then some believers will say that evolution or anything pertaining to science that they don't understand is false.I don't believe that science and God are mutually exclusive.For me personally science helps to explain a lot of things regarding creation, almost like giving me a window into how creative God is.I believe that God uses science to show us how awesome he is.To me science does not disprove Gods existence it actually reaffirms it on a human logic level, for me.You may disagree, that's fine, but this is just how I see it.

I understand that thinking for yourself and seeing the logic is difficult after the brainwashing abuse your horrible parents did to you but it's time to grow up and think in the real world little one.

For a critique of functionalism in the social sciences, see Carl Hempel, «The Logic of Functional Analysis.»

Royce did not live to see the fulfillment of his high hopes and the development of this logic by some logicians not only into an instrument for the elimination of metaphysics but into a formalism and conventionalism in which truth in Royce's sense no longer figured.

For media and commentary see, for example, Michelle Grattan, «Productivity Commission attacks competition «effects test» and farm foreign investment rules» (The Conversation, 21 July 2016), Phillip Coorey, «Productivity Commission takes aim at rural protectionism» (AFR, 20 July 2016), Jacob Greber, «Productivity Commission joins fight against «effects test» (AFR, 21 July 2016) and David Uren, «No logic to red tape hobbling farms: Productivity Commission» (The Australian, 21 July 201For media and commentary see, for example, Michelle Grattan, «Productivity Commission attacks competition «effects test» and farm foreign investment rules» (The Conversation, 21 July 2016), Phillip Coorey, «Productivity Commission takes aim at rural protectionism» (AFR, 20 July 2016), Jacob Greber, «Productivity Commission joins fight against «effects test» (AFR, 21 July 2016) and David Uren, «No logic to red tape hobbling farms: Productivity Commission» (The Australian, 21 July 201for example, Michelle Grattan, «Productivity Commission attacks competition «effects test» and farm foreign investment rules» (The Conversation, 21 July 2016), Phillip Coorey, «Productivity Commission takes aim at rural protectionism» (AFR, 20 July 2016), Jacob Greber, «Productivity Commission joins fight against «effects test» (AFR, 21 July 2016) and David Uren, «No logic to red tape hobbling farms: Productivity Commission» (The Australian, 21 July 2016).

While that makes sense and I agree with the logic re: Danny fouling out last night... I don't see why Bryn having beaten out BP3 for minutes early in the season would have to stay permanent.

Once the Arsenal team runs onto the pitch for any game of football it is up to the 11 players out there representing us all to perform and produce the right result, so we can see the logic in laying the blame with these players when things do not go exactly according to plan and the Arsenal suffer the sort of disappointment that has been all too prevalent this season.

And yes with the logic I'm bringing in, Esky should have been replaced too, but I don't see Ned ever pulling Esky unless for injury.

Talk of Griezmann and Reus just seems fantasy, neither will cost less than 40mil and I don't see us getting any player (bar potentially a genuine ST) for that price this window despite all the desperate fan logic that gets banded about this time of the year.

I see no logic in your comment... Don't you think these banners put pressure on the players to give more (recent games for example)!!

I dnt see logic in that, and I dnt want exArsenal players play for manUtd ever again.