|
Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Chancellor,
Ah, now we enter into deep theological waters (so to speak.) Since a frozen-over hell would require the continuous authority and will of the omnipotent God, the freezing would have to be in a progressive state.
Were the Almighty to cease desiring an icy Hades, well, the melting would be instantaneous.
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005 Posts: 3292 Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Teacher in Rome wrote: |
Thank you (especially FH) for the interesting comments on the use of corpora. I was working for Longman at the time of their innovative Spoken Corpus, which was used (in part) for dictionary examples. The Corpus also produced some very interesting evidence as to how English can be used and adapted. The recordings were completely compelling, too, as all of us in a presentation eavesdropped in on a conversation about changing lightbulbs, that gave us such gems as "the sausagey one".
But the Longman dictionary editors also made up examples if the corpus-derived samples were unhelpful in illustrating meaning (as opposed to COBUILD who, I think, only used examples from the corpus.) |
Yes, COBUILD certainly seems more loathe to edit or adapt examples, even if those examples remain difficult or unhelpful. The main problem though seems to be the "dumping" of ever-increasing masses of written as opposed to spoken data into the COBUILD databanks - fine if you are reading or writing, less so if you plan on speaking/conversing informally. (But COBUILD probably claim, in response to such criticisms, that they are being more 'monitor' than 'opportunistic' corpora-wise). Anyway, COBUILD dictionaries are still very good, especially ones such as the BBC English Dictionary which they helped produce, which focuses very closely on the 80 million words of the Bank of English that came from the BBC World Service and NPR. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 867 Location: Russia
|
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
johnslat wrote: |
Dear Chancellor,
Ah, now we enter into deep theological waters (so to speak.) Since a frozen-over hell would require the continuous authority and will of the omnipotent God, the freezing would have to be in a progressive state.
Were the Almighty to cease desiring an icy Hades, well, the melting would be instantaneous.
Regards,
John |
I object!
If the Almighty does not desire hell at all (frozen or otherwise), but has to allow for the free will of creatures to reject Him (by the mere granting of free will), then He has to allow them to lock the door from the inside. Furthermore, if hell exists outside of time, then the continuous tenses are by no means called for. Eternal states are probably more correctly expressed to our limited understandings using the Present Simple. It is probably wrong to say "Timothy McVeigh is burning in hell". This obviously leads to how grammar reflects reality (although by no means causing it). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear rusmeister,
I had a feeling you'd show up before long.
Trapped as we are in this mortal coil, limited as we are by our temporal existence from expressing everlasting verities, must we then be forever silent about eternity?
Why, by its very nature, at least insofar as the boundaries of language allow, eternity is . . . continuous.
And whether or not the "door is locked from the inside" is immaterial. Hell (presuming it exists) is part of God's creation, and therefore can remain in existence in ANY condition only as long as God wills it.
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: eslcafe
|
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If God is omnipotent then he must be able to create something that he is powerless to destroy.
If God is able to create something that he is powerless to destroy, he is not omnipotent
Thus whether or not God is omnipotent, he is not omnipotent.
If God is not omnipotent he may be unable to detroy that which he has created.
Thus hell might not freeze over, whether or not God wills it not so to do.
Carry on. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear stillnosheep,
Oh dear - it's that old semantic paradox rearing its head again.
"But one can escape the paradox without resorting to facile circular assumptions like "God created logic; thus God can transcend it". The serious problem is with the definition of omnipotence. The question in effect asserts that omnipotence includes the ability to perform impossible or self-contradictory acts, and then implies that omnipotence is a sham because clearly an omnipotent being can't perform the impossible, because shucks, it's impossible. It's a semantic rather than theological or even logical issue."
"Then there is another class of sentences in which grammaticality is present, but there are improper referents and relations, similar to the linguists' favorite: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". These sentences (and any questions based upon them like "Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?") are said to have no truth value (neither true nor false)--they just don't have any meaning to BE true or false.
It is into this category that the following sentences/questions fit:
God can make a square circle.
(and the Q-version of it: Can God make a square circle?)
God can make colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
God can make a rock so big it turns into a peach.
God can make a rock so invisible that it casts a shadow 2 parsecs long!
It is in this category that the famous "God can make a rock so big he cannot lift it" fits. As a 'sentence' it actually has no meaning, and hence is neither true nor false."
http://everything2.com/node/142226
"Anyone who thinks about these questions for a while can see the flaw inherent in each. In the first one God is asked to make round triangles ... totally disregarding the fact that triangles aren�t, by their very nature as geometric shapes, round. The demand that God create round triangles is a demand for God to work ontological nonsense. So also with the second question: a circle with 4 equal sides that are at 90 degree angles to each other isn�t, by pure definition, a circle � we call such geometric objects squares. Likewise for the third question: one of God�s essential attributes is �being.� God simply cannot not be. Non-existence is not an option for God, and this isn�t due to any lack of God�s ability or power, but due entirely to what it means for God to be God. As I have already pointed out, God is. Hence, God � by pure definition of what it means to be God � cannot kill Godself.[6]
The long and short of it is that these kinds of questions demand that God work contradictory nonsense; they demand that God produce or do something which violates the very nature of things. Since round triangles are not triangles but circles, such are not ontologically possible. This kind of observation doesn�t seem to reach such critics, however. The response I have most frequently received to my observations can be characterized by the taunt: �But, if God can�t or won�t make round triangles, then God can�t do everything!�
http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 867 Location: Russia
|
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
johnslat wrote: |
Dear stillnosheep,
Oh dear - it's that old semantic paradox rearing its head again.
"But one can escape the paradox without resorting to facile circular assumptions like "God created logic; thus God can transcend it". The serious problem is with the definition of omnipotence. The question in effect asserts that omnipotence includes the ability to perform impossible or self-contradictory acts, and then implies that omnipotence is a sham because clearly an omnipotent being can't perform the impossible, because shucks, it's impossible. It's a semantic rather than theological or even logical issue."
"Then there is another class of sentences in which grammaticality is present, but there are improper referents and relations, similar to the linguists' favorite: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". These sentences (and any questions based upon them like "Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?") are said to have no truth value (neither true nor false)--they just don't have any meaning to BE true or false.
It is into this category that the following sentences/questions fit:
God can make a square circle.
(and the Q-version of it: Can God make a square circle?)
God can make colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
God can make a rock so big it turns into a peach.
God can make a rock so invisible that it casts a shadow 2 parsecs long!
It is in this category that the famous "God can make a rock so big he cannot lift it" fits. As a 'sentence' it actually has no meaning, and hence is neither true nor false."
http://everything2.com/node/142226
"Anyone who thinks about these questions for a while can see the flaw inherent in each. In the first one God is asked to make round triangles ... totally disregarding the fact that triangles aren�t, by their very nature as geometric shapes, round. The demand that God create round triangles is a demand for God to work ontological nonsense. So also with the second question: a circle with 4 equal sides that are at 90 degree angles to each other isn�t, by pure definition, a circle � we call such geometric objects squares. Likewise for the third question: one of God�s essential attributes is �being.� God simply cannot not be. Non-existence is not an option for God, and this isn�t due to any lack of God�s ability or power, but due entirely to what it means for God to be God. As I have already pointed out, God is. Hence, God � by pure definition of what it means to be God � cannot kill Godself.[6]
The long and short of it is that these kinds of questions demand that God work contradictory nonsense; they demand that God produce or do something which violates the very nature of things. Since round triangles are not triangles but circles, such are not ontologically possible. This kind of observation doesn�t seem to reach such critics, however. The response I have most frequently received to my observations can be characterized by the taunt: �But, if God can�t or won�t make round triangles, then God can�t do everything!�
http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm |
Thank you John, for beating me to it!
Still, it's an understandable error that a lot of people make.
I didn't know better until I read a lot of CS Lewis (not just the popular works, but his more serious stuff). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: eslcafe
|
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
johnslat wrote: |
The serious problem is with the definition of omnipotence.
The question in effect asserts that omnipotence includes the ability to perform impossible or self-contradictory acts. |
I disagree, with both of these assertions.
The problem is not with the definition of omnipotence, but with its imputed ingodation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 867 Location: Russia
|
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
stillnosheep wrote: |
johnslat wrote: |
The serious problem is with the definition of omnipotence.
The question in effect asserts that omnipotence includes the ability to perform impossible or self-contradictory acts. |
I disagree, with both of these assertions.
The problem is not with the definition of omnipotence, but with its imputed ingodation. |
Quote: |
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. |
Merriam-Webster
First you say the problem is with the definition of omnipotence, then you say it isn't. I'd say it isn't God who is being self-contradictory here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005 Posts: 3292 Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|