Sentences with phrase «what possible point»

And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead?

Not exact matches

In theory, it's possible for a startup to capitalize on an innovation at any point along this arc, so long as you know what you're gunning for.

«You have survival of the fittest going on between these A.I. companies,» he said, «until you reach the point where you wonder if it becomes possible to understand how to ensure they are being fair — and how do you describe to a computer what that means, anyway?»

Even if that were possible, what would is the point of data you can not safely share?

Some kind of rebound is possible, the question is: from what point?

What Lazy CEOs like my friend do is figure out the key point of constraint to success as quickly as possible as a way to make the best possible decisions.

When you get to the point of exploring possible locations, assess what type of office you need.

What you need to do is design your price points and rewards properly so as to reach your goal, while at the same time giving your project's backers the best possible deal.

«What I'm trying to drive at, is whether there are any circumstances in which you'd go back to the EU on certain points, for example, if the resolution were amended to say Parliament would like the government to seek an extension of the Article 50 process — is that possible?»

Buyers who select priority shipping raise red flags, because «they want to liquidate what they ordered as soon as possible and turn it into cash,» Tan points out.

Dozens of firms rushed to contain the damage from possible security weak points following the anti-secrecy organization's revelations, although some said they needed more detailed information on what the U.S. intelligence agency was up to before they can thwart suspected, but previously hidden attacks.

At that point, «you have to make a conscious plan to share as much information as possible — what your sales are, what the strategy is, why you're making certain decisions,» says Roberge.

Here is a post from Libertarian News that begins, «I recently got into an argument over on the Reddit Bitcoin boards where I held the position that fractional reserve banking with Bitcoins was not possible,» which sounds fun; he recants that view but does make what I think is a very valid point:

The point being, what are the chances this could happen to an athlete and what are the chances that we happened to be in the best place possible if it did happen?

Now your suggestion of `... is to point out as loudly and publicly as possible the many untruths and contradictions he is trying to pull over on the Alberta public» is what we need to do before next election — In a website it would be preferable and in the newspapers.

While the sabre rattling and economic boycotts are very visible actions, behind the scenes discussions between cooler heads will likely be what leads to a politically palitable resolution, if that is even possible at this point.

I would have the urge to open it as fast as possible, but knowing my christian friends» inability to acknowledge or at this point even understand what truth is, I would first arrange a live PayPerView event with thousands of recording devices and as many people as possible to witness the opening.

I would like to point out to those here who think it is not possible for Jesuits (or anyone) to hold science and faith simultaneously, and who invoke «evidence» as the only arbiter of what is real, that human knowledge is always evolving.

There follows from this concern the chief literary and scholarly characteristic of Pannenberg's writings - what makes them sometimes so complexly rewarding, and sometimes so utterly exasperating: his unwillingness to leave anything out, to make any point without seeking every possible source of its illumination, whether by exegeting great chunks of Scripture or by tracing a question through the whole history of philosophy or by suddenly sketching the present state of cosmological physics or by....

What is the point of all religions coming together to boil all their belief systems down to one common denominator, if that's even possible?

Have we come to a point in culture when men because of the possible consequences of advancing in what may be an appropriate way have become fearful of doing so?

We must resist the temptation to bring it to the lowest possible point — fist fighting — and concern ourselves with hearing the voices of the marginalized, and finding real ways to address what they are saying.

Firstly, it must be remembered, that he disclaims very early in the book that he can only speak for the mainline denominations with which he is familiar, and although my memory may fail me, he implies that he can only speak for his observations of the churches / leaders with whom he is familiar, and also that he may be wrong, and also, that he is only pointing out what he calls a possible cause for the problems he has seen, and hopes that his suggestions / ideas, will be considered, researched, etc, and that time will tell if his thesis bears any truth or not.

As E.E.Y. Hales has succinctly pointed out in his Pio Nono: First Modern Pope, Dupanloup posited the thesis and the antithesis of the propositions» the former referring to the ideal of the true society, the latter to what is possible and just in the existing state of society.

The fresh point of view possible precisely because I am not you may be just the thing for solving a stalemated quandary, but what we ordinarily mean when we say such things is «If I were myself in your place.»

This is why science investigates the natural world as if there were no omnipotent being controlling it - after all, if there were, then literally anything is possible, and then what would be the point of scientific investigation?

And yet, it is possible to point to a loose consensus among biblical scholars of the past few decades concerning what can be known on the basis of rigorous historical inquiry.

What is more, as Buber has pointed out, the resumption of true dialogue between peoples will only be possible when the existential mistrust which divides the world into two hostile camps is overcome.

There have been many other theories of atonement, each picking out what a given generation took to be the worst possible human situation and going on to affirm that in the action of God in Jesus, God met us precisely at that point: slavery to demonic powers, from which we have been delivered; actual slavery to human masters, with manumission accomplished in Christ; guilt for wrongdoing, with Christ as the advocate who pleads for, and secures, our release; corruptibility and mortal death, met in Christ with healing and eternal life....

It is true that both the gospels and the speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts give important testimony as to what the apostles taught about the Christian life and proclaimed about the meaning of Jesus» own life, death, and resurrection; yet both the gospels and Acts were written, not by apostles, but by later disciples, and their evidence on particular points stands in need of confirmation, if possible, from the apostles themselves.

The condition requisite for healing it always this about - face, and from a purely philosophical point of view it might be a subtle question whether it is possible for one to be in despair with full consciousness of what it is about which one despairs.)

I'm not sure what my point is really, I'm kind of rambling, but I suppose it's just that I'm wondering that if it's possible for a bunch of online strangers to work out their disagreements and come to a friendly understanding (and yes endure temporary offenses and misunderstandings), it must be possible in real life church IF (a big «if») we are willing to stop being too afraid to speak up.

So also, theological models may make discourse possible, simplify complexities, and point to what otherwise eludes us.

The attempt might even be made positively to recommend this fixing of a terminological starting - point, by recalling that for Christian scholastic philosophy, too, in contrast to Platonic and Idealist philosophy, what first meets man's cognition and what he therefore rightly takes as the starting - point and model case of possible objects of his knowledge, is what is experienced by the senses and to that extent material.

I will only recall that, by virtue of its convergent nature, hominization is scarcely conceivable (seen from the point at which we find ourselves) except as terminating, whatever road it follows, in a point of collective reflection where Mankind, having achieved within and around itself, technically and intellectually, the greatest possible coherence, will find itself raised to a higher critical point — one of instability, tension, inter-penetration and metamorphosis — coinciding, it would seem, with what for us are the phenomenal limits of the world.

And then he reflects upon how he came to the point where he can say that, by virtue of what startling and reconstitutive convulsion it has been made possible, and he stops the active voice in the remembrance of»... this Son of God who loved me, and gave himself...

What is required is not an examination of Mark in the light of common Gentile Christianity, which Paul shared and presupposed, but a point - blank comparison of every possible contact between the theology of Mark and that which was specifically and uniquely Paul's own.

... I now add that this communion is already perfect in what we all consider the highest point of the life of grace, martyria unto death, the truest communion possible with Christ.»

Writing about Humanae Vitae just a month after Pope Paul VI issued it, at which point lots of Catholics, including a goodly number of Jesuits, had popped a cork, the then - superior general asked his fellow Jesuits to assume an attitude of «obedience which is at once loving, firm, open, and truly creative» and «to do everything possible to penetrate, and to help others penetrate, into the thought which may not have been his own previously» - precisely because they were Jesuits, and this is what Jesuits do.

To repeat what has been said earlier upon compromise, sin appears at the point of disparity between the actual and the best possible.

For hope is an openness to the breaking in of what is completely unpredictable and unanticipated from the point of view of what is considered to be possible by ordinary standards of expectation.

(Producing need not mean «wholly determining») And what is the point of universals if no instances are, ever have been, or ever could be in an intelligible sense possible?

My point here is not to make dogmatic claims about what will ever be scientifically or technically possible, but to suggest once again the Hall's own vision of the future may take too seriously the self - image of some technologists as practitioners of a purely rational and completely formalizable activity.

Furthermore, because he wanted to get as many people to hear his message as possible, it was usually short, pointed, and memorable so that people could take what they learn and spread the news.

We love giving voice to people who challenge status quo, point to what's possible and spur our generation to say, «Let's go!»

The point is, the definition which is given of a scientific object at any given point in history is not inviolable, so that the only change possible would be to add something («organizing relations») to it; what happens is that the definition itself is changed.

If he keeps looking he may find that it is possible to reduce everything to mathematics from a certain point of view, but what is that except a language of the mind?

What in an older kind of philosophy would have been called the chain - of - cause - and - effect is here seen as being very much richer; it is a congeries of occasions, events, pressures, movements, routes, which come to focus at this or that point, and which for their explanation require some principle that has brought and still is bringing each of them, rather than some other possible occurrence, into this particular concrete moment of what we commonly style «existence&raqWhat in an older kind of philosophy would have been called the chain - of - cause - and - effect is here seen as being very much richer; it is a congeries of occasions, events, pressures, movements, routes, which come to focus at this or that point, and which for their explanation require some principle that has brought and still is bringing each of them, rather than some other possible occurrence, into this particular concrete moment of what we commonly style «existence&raqwhat we commonly style «existence».

Melanchthon sought to make the documents as irenic as possible, endeavoring to show that the Protestant convictions were in accord with those of the Universal Church, but did not hesitate to point out what abuses had crept into the Roman Church.

It is not clear what Whitehead intends by speaking of «physical» experience here, nor is it clear what is intended by equating the events with the development of the experience instead of the experience itself, although the two might be coextensive, in which possible case the point might be construed as a phenomenalistic one.