Sentences with phrase «talking about the existence»

I'm talking about the existence of ideologies here.

If we take seriously the creativity in human nature and the language that points to and shows the rich meanings to he found in human life, we can talk about the existence of God.

I'm not talking about the existence of bezels, I'm talking about ugly (to my eye) bezels with fat, overly - rounded corners and bulging surfaces.

You spend the first two paragraphs of your damn article talking about the existence of UHI.

Samsung, however, is yet to talk about the existence of the Gear S4.

Not exact matches

This week, to continue the conversation, I am posting another article by Molly that talks about how important a company's culture is to its brand and to its very existence.

you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are talking about Atheism as a religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.

The only real impediment in disproving the existence of God is that the word is so poorly defined that we can't really be sure if we're talking about the same thing.

Rather than discuss the existence of God, let's talk about whether God is violent or not.

Yet when religions talk about alternate states of being and planes of existence, they are ridiculed by believers in «science.»

If the existence of god (s) can not be proven, then all, yes ** ALL ** this talk about devils, angels, bible, etc etc is just busywork for weak minded morons.

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

If your infinite chain theories were logical and truly proved the existence of a god, don't you think that this would be major news and others would be talking about your theory?

The so called religious talk about their god's existence with certainty, then harp on about faith is all that's needed.

You cited the continued existence of the stem species as damaging to evolution, now back it up or admit you don't have a fvcking clue what you are talking about.

Thus to talk about «the spirit of man» was to say that human existence is not only a matter of mind and body, as we have represented this in our previous discussion, but is also a matter of relationship, in which there is an openness to, and a sharing in, the life of others.

Of course, many today hold that all this talk about God, Creator, Prime Intelligence, and the Act of Existence is gibberish.

Thus when we speak of death we are not talking about the finality of human existence.

Existentialist theologians, for example, seem to forget entirely that human existence, about which they talk so much, has a location in time and space and in a given part of the natural order.

As Michael Uhlmann has remarked, it becomes impossible finally to talk about marriage without using that «N - word,» nature, and without talking about the sexuality imprinted in our «gendered» existence: «Male and female created He them.»

We can't talk about so - called Christian Privilege until we establish where, when, who and under what circumstances we are alleging its existence and prevalence.

If, on the other hand, they choose to postulate the existence of God in order to account for these phenomena, as Kant and Hegel did, and as Krüger has recently done, I would contend that it is really God they are talking about, not, however, in the mythological sense, but in the Greek sense of the Arché.

If you were listening to NPR last week, you may have heard my friend Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, talking to Barbara Bradley Hagerty about genomic evidence that calls into question the literal existence of Adam and Eve.

In an earlier day, when a «substance» philosophy was prevalent, this was talked about as «the divine subsistence,» not only as if God were to be distinguished from the world but also as if God's existence was somehow other than God's activity.

In the desert, Orange Peel and the man talk some more about the existence of God, the vagaries of religion, and suffering.

One can acknowledge that he is unacquainted with what Paul meant when he said «I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me», and at the same time have his individual existence broken open to fact by the assumption that the man knew what he was talking about, meant what he said, and lived out and died out the affirmation.

When we are talking about details of a beings life... a being whose existence is measured in decades, then decades are NOT an «incredibly short time».

I've listed this several times, but apparently Atheists seem to want the clouds to open up for them for proof of God's existence, but prophecy fulfillment is excellent proof for the divine authorship of Scripture... I could talk about prophecies regarding Israel's captivity to Babylon, Cyrus called out by name hundreds of years before his birth as the one that will rescue Israel from Babylon, the destruction of Babylon foretold, the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple foretold, the destruction of Tyre and specifically how it was to be done, how the city of Petra would be destroyed... These are just a few verifyable examples...

We're talking about the human beings right now, at this very moment, in different parts of this world with no concept of the existence of Christ and christianity.

So in case what has been expounded here is correct, in case there is no incommensurability in a human life, and what there is of the incommensurable is only such by an accident from which no consequences can be drawn, in so far as existence is regarded in terms of the idea, Hegel is right; but he is not right in talking about faith or in allowing Abraham to be regarded as the father of it; for by the latter he has pronounced judgment both upon Abraham and upon faith.

They are talking about this man's existence.

yep wouldn't want to talk about s - ex which how all of them came into existence in the first place.

Sue, I am out for the night — try to remember the word relevant — try to stay relevant — we are talking about proof for God and / or proof against his existence.

The simultaneous existence of good and hard in our lives is something we all know to be true, but it is so rare to see it talked about vulnerably by leaders.

I don't exactly know what it is but it is quite interesting with all this talk about religion and the debate about the existence of God or Gods.

These are the real Atheist people that I'm talking about who actually, seriously, study to find their quest of God's existence by studying science.

We are talking about a core understanding about the purpose of existence and can not discount antiquity simply because you like the new bling.

We are not talking about some state «after this life»; we are talking about the negative and positive prehensions by God of what is going on in this existence.

Within created kinds is all we will probably see with a human life time or since we've been looking, but recorded history is but pin point compared to the world when talking about the time we know of the earths existence.

Second, I suggest that the talk about «resurrection of the body» is an assertion that the totality of the material world and of human history, as well as of every man in that history who, with his brethren, has achieved good in his existence in the world, is usable by God who through it has been enriched in His own experience without changing in His supremely worshipful deity — the God unsurpassable by anything not Himself, but open to enrichment in being what He is and in terms of what He does.

My church has an «Apologetics Weekend» with a number of speakers talking about evidence for the existence of God and why we know the Scriptures are reliable.

ok, ok, ok, i get it both sides think they are telling the truth there are no lyers here on this blogs only misinform people talking about two separate subjects yet thinking they are talking about the same thing the existence of god... one side believe the other doesn't what's wrong with that... sooner or later they'll changed their minds and one side will believe and the other won't so the arguement will forever be the same about two separate aguement on the same blog... but its definitely entertaining to read the comebacks... keep up the good work you all... its just as fun to read what the believer have to say as to what the nonebeliever have to say... after all it keeps all getting to know eachother better on what we believe right???

But that would make it impossible for us to talk about a causal relationship between a present effect and a past cause, under the assumption that the past cause is now no longer in existence.

The philosophical concept of emergence,» for example, can be employed to illuminate what theology has sought to witness to in its talk about «revelation,» namely, «what it means to have an innovating mystery break forth from a given structure of existence» (FFS 133).

How could a contemporary Christian believer understand all existence, so that the living God remained central to his or her life, even though the conventional kind of talk about «life after death» had little if any meaning?

Remember to try not to misinterpret what I'm saying based on applying it in a limited scope — I'm not saying that each object must exist for all time, so I'm not saying that we must assume the universe existed for all time any more than a particular apple tree must have existed for all time — I'm talking about the dynamic of the greatest / whole object of existence whatever that may happen to be.

In that sense, we may agree with Martin Heidegger's oft - quoted talk about human death as being «the finality» of our existence.

In my comment a couple of days ago I went through a thought experiment concerning the third possibility above and arrived at the following — if existence just is, then it was not created (either from God or out of nothingness) and therefore it has always been here (remember I'm talking about all of existence, not a conceivably lesser object like the universe).

Even talk about a possible survival can not deny that patent fact, once we have understood the total organic, psycho - somatic, nature of our human existence.

Now, if the organization attempts to stifle dissension that does not in any way threaten the existence and identity of that organization, then we are talking about a level of control that can only be described as suffocating and evil.