Sentences with phrase «world than our senses»

But what if there is more to this world than our senses tell us?

Not exact matches

Asia and Latin America are not risk - free, but «there seems to be sense in buying equities in these regions on similar or lower valuations than their counterparts in the developed world given that dividend growth is likely to be superior, given higher economic growth potential.»

But somewhere in the heat of battle, when there seemed little to lose, when doing whatever it took felt more heroic than sticking to your guns, for one unfortunate moment at the 11th hour, it made all the sense in the world to ask, «Is this a prime minister?»

Capital raise after capital raise obviously signals an intense cash burn rate, but if Tesla is going to change the world and push electric cars to a point where they constitute more than 1 % of global auto sales, chilling out on the spending and letting the balance sheet take a breather doesn't make much sense.

Whether it was a new job, a merger or acquisition, or even an industry disruption, there used to be a sense that the business world was punctuated by change rather than pervaded by it.

He also concludes that «raising its (the government's) deficit target back up to 1 per cent (from zero) makes more sense when there are other short - term - pain - for - long - term - gain initiatives that are needed to address more pressing objectives than lowering a debt ratio that is already the envy of the world.»

P&G is cutting product lines, the plethora of which made far more sense in the retail world than online.

To some of the more cynical China watchers, there is a sense that the pledges Mr. Xi offered to the forum, and the world, may amount to less than they appear.

In this sense, the Marshall Plan was less a gift than an effort to restructure the world economy in terms favorable to the victor.

This is nothing more than an attempt by your mind to make sense of the natural world which apparently it can't comprehend.

They say then that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may for ever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend.

Yet, Heidegger is even less congenial to Christian theology than Kant, for in an important sense Christianity is anthropocentric: «God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.»

Atheists deal with what the physical world delivers, so they might not have any sense of something bigger than man and have no ultimate purpose.

@ total non sense Perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I was trying to be kind by implying that rather than treating religiosity as a mental disability, for which the supposedly clinically sick can receive insurance benefits and evade personal actionable responsibility by claiming illness, it would be better to treat religiosity as a societal functional disorder which can be addressed through better education and a perceptional shift towards accepting scientific explanations for how the world works rather than relying on literal interpretations of ancient bronze age mythologies and their many derivations since.

Sin - talk proves to be enabling rather than debilitating discourse; it invokes a «powerful sense of hope» that animates women's agency in the world.

But there is a background, and the background more often than not is the world in the best sense of the word, the world as made, approved, loved, sustained and finally redeemable by God.

The man who is wholly taken up with the demands of everyday living or whose sole interest is in the outward appearances of things seldom gains more than a glimpse, at best, of this second phase in our sense - perceptions, that in which the world, having entered into us, then withdraws from us and bears us away with it: he can have only a very dim awareness of that aureole, thrilling and inundating our being, through which is disclosed to us at every point of contact the unique essence of the universe.

nothing makes the atheist more ticked off more than when you bring up GOD... God gets all the blame for all the tragedy in the world... If there wasnt a god in the first place, humans would not know tragedy or injustice when we see it... it would be a non-issue to us... survival of the fittest would not permit the emotions of love, compassion, empathy... Darwininian theory could not allow any of those and many other of the best of people's capacity for caring to surface... You cant explain it away by synapse or neurons... without a Supreme Being, there would be no sense of justice or injustice, we would not call it anything because there is no Ultimate Moral Standard to compare it.

in a true sense the arms and the heart which you open to me are nothing less than all the united powers of the world which, permeated through and through by your will, your inclinations, your temperament, bend over my being to form it and feed it and draw it into the blazing centre of your infinite fire.

While I'm more of an atheist than anything else and respect Mr. Hawking's vast knowledge of the sciences and believe he's probably correct in his assertions I also believe that NO ONE really knows what's in store for us after death... most likely nothing at all since that's what makes sense to me, but all the brains in our world put together don't really know for sure.

For Christianity, although it is a religion in the sense that it links the life of man with the Life of God, is far more than one of the world's great faiths: it is the revelation of the way of true living.

But pointing out that Thomas's physiology is antiquated does nothing to impugn the basic insight that there is a difference between the intellect and the senses that has to do somehow with the intellect's being less directly linked to the physical world than are the senses.

The first danger is that, with its strong appeal to the sense of the dramatic and the romantic, the radical response may attract individuals who see the world in black and white, who may then see themselves as «holier than thou» because they make do without new furniture or red meat or homogenized peanut butter.

In varying degrees, most of them want practical theology to become more critical and philosophical, more public (in the sense of being more oriented toward the church's ministry to the world rather than simply preoccupied with the needs of its own internal life), and more related to an analysis of the various situations and contexts of theology.

The sense of «being affected» is certainly nothing other than, in Whitehead's terms, the «consciousness of the causal efficacy of the external world» (PR 184).

DH «I am in favour of recovering the biblical understanding of shaming in the sense that «God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong» 1 cor 1:27... as an encouragement to anyone who is a victim (and therefore considered weak in the eyes of the world) that there is a greater power to call on in order to shame... any person in a position of power in the church that is using their power to oppress rather than serve... Does that help or hinder?»

That insight is nothing other than the understanding that while in one sense God is indeed unalterable in his faithfulness, his love, and his welcome to his human children, in another sense the opportunities offered to him to express just such an attitude depend to a very considerable degree upon the way in which what has taken place in the world provides for God precisely such an opening on the human side; and it is used by him to deepen his relationship and thereby enrich both himself and the life of those children.

For example, talk of coming down from heaven may have been appropriate in a world that conceived the divine habitations as almost literally «above»; it will also be appropriate as a useful metaphorical way of describing the presence among us of that which (again in a symbolic sense) is higher than human experience as such.

By contrast, our third exemplar, Kant, refused to credit such knowledge at all, concluding with Hume that, from the world of sense and experience reason could never proceed farther than mere «appearance.»

For the latter not only is it the case, as Hartshorne would agree, that every finite individual owes its existence to the free creative activity of God, in the sense that apart from that creative activity that individual would not exist; in addition, it is wholly due to the free creative activity of God that anything other than Himself exists: it is contingent, and contingent on the will of God, that any created world at all exists.

God transcended the world in the sense that he was outside the world and other than the world.

Human nature, in the sense of man's basic physical, emotional, impulsive and intellectual constitution, somehow moral at the core, seemed plainly more fundamental than any particular sort of human behavior, even economic; and human nature itself emerges in a world order far more ancient and more fundamental still.

He emphasises the idea of purity and innocence — a sense of freshness and a willingness to see other people as neighbours rather than intruders into a privatised and self - obsessed world.

@fred, «98 % of the world can not be wrong in their sense that purpose is greater than organic matter reacting to chemical stimuli.»

The reason the world has paused for Pope Francis» if only for a little while» is that so many people sense in him something more than himself; not just God's truth and God's justice, but God's tenderness.

It is given by God, but you must also understand that it is you who must exercise delight, as you exercise your senses through which you take in the world, though it is more fundamental than a sense.

It's pretty bad when the unbelieving world has a better sense of justice and a better understanding of right and wrong than Christians.

And it matters to him in more than a superficial sense, as if he simply observed and knew in an external way what was going on in the world.

While it theologically doesn't make sense, the Christian Church does allow for a place to fulfill psychological needs (the need to belong, to understand, to name but two examples), and, to follow up with Kenneth's suggestion, it should be trying to tackle real world questions rather than simply rehashing old scripture.

The American Christian debate about just war theory is in a sense nothing other than a debate about America's role in the world, a debate little changed since, say, 1968.

It is because I seek after facts (rather than after «a sign» in the sense of the sort of evident manifestation which I agree with him it would be radically wrong to seek) that I look for a publicly observable state of affairs in the spatial and temporal world, not disclosing, nor containing, but still pointing towards (in a way that I agree remains entirely ambivalent) that which is, in my view, necessarily unique and creative.

Hard just war theory reverses these emphases, replacing them with the following: a presumption against injustice and disorder rather than against war; an assumption that war is tragic but inevitable in a fallen world and that war is a necessary task of government; a tendency to trust the U.S. government and its claims of need for military action; an emphasis on just war theory as a tool to aid policymakers and military personnel in their decisions; an inclination to distrust the efficacy of international treaties and to downplay the value of international actors and perspectives; a less stringent or differently oriented application of some just war criteria; and no sense of common ground with Christian pacifists.

The innovating newness is a recalling to our senses of a wider world than our current orthodoxies normally permit.

The world students» design - science revolution may possibly result in a general reorientation of world society's awareness, common sense, and intelligence which, just «in the nick of time,» will bring mankind into conscious promulgation of the do - more - with - lessing invention revolution to be applied directly to gaining man's living advantage, which can accomplish the 100 percent physical success of all humanity in less than one - half the time it would take to occur only as the inadvertent by - product of further weapons detouring of human initiative.

Even though the image of God's humility is paradoxical to human reason, we may be enabled by it to make much more sense of our world than we could without it.

Perhaps aspects of them, such as their ethical implications, may be compared, but as total approaches to mystery, to human existence, and to the world, it makes little sense to say that one is clearly better than another.

There is the «sure and certain hope» of life not simply beyond but more than this world can contain or convey — and in this sense, surely, Christianity is incurably otherworldly.

You can't be a pocket of resistance without attending... but I still think people come to church when church is different from the world, when there is something noticeably ecclesial in the broadest sense, when church seems like church rather than a shopping mall.»

America's sense of mission was never higher than during World War II, but it was at that moment when Venerable Fulton Sheen warned his fellow countrymen not to allow the justice of their cause to minimize their personal sins:

Depending on how you view the world, one makes more sense than the other.