Предположение о чем-то, что в реальности не произошло. Для выражения удивления, сомнения, недоверия

This illogical question is representative of the type of proposed paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can"t pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big that He can"t pick it up, then He isn"t omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.

Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information. Therefore, its conclusion is inaccurate.

What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God"s nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature, and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

For example, I have human nature. I can run, but I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature, and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn"t be in all places at all times. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big that he can"t pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self-contradictory. If God were self- contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated His nature, like make a rock so big that He couldn"t pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self- contradiction. Since truth is not self-contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.

Another way to look at it is to realize that in order for God to make something so big that He couldn"t pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.

Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn"t logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. A) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. B) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. C) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth"s crust." A rock, by definition, is not infinitely large. So to say the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.

What the critics are asking is that God become self-contradictory as a proof He doesn"t exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. What they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They are being illogical to prove God doesn"t exist, instead of using logic. It doesn"t work, and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

Millions read Dave Barry"s syndicated humor column. But how many have heard Dave Barry actually speak? If you called him before Thanksgiving, here"s what his answering machine would have said: "Hello. You have reached the booking agent for Long Dong Silver. Due to his recent rise in popularity, Long Dong is booked up right now. But if you"ll leave your name and number, we"ll get back to you with information about some of our other acts, including Medium Dong Silver, Barely Adequate Dong Silver and Senator Orrin Hatch."

That Dave. Once his twisted little mind gets a major target in its cross hairs, it keeps strafing. Barry already demolished Hatch, Joseph Biden and Ted Kennedy in his column on the Clarence Thomas hearings, a mock transcript of the Senate Judiciary Committee"s blatherings that even managed to translate Strom Thurmond. SENATOR THURMOND: Soamwhoan ben cudrin" mheah widm tan" bfust drang. TRANSLATOR: He says, "Somebody has colored my hair with what appears to be Tang breakfast drink." A lot of sobersided op-ed page types considered that piece the funniest sendup of elected officials since the last issue of the Congressional Record. But to legions of dweebs-a word Dave reveres almost as much as "boogers"-it was just another reinforcement of years of addiction. Back before The New York Times Book Review called Barry "the funniest man in America" (even though he loves to deflate the Times"s pomposity) and the 1988 Pulitzer Prize Board honored him for Distinguished Commentary (even though one of his entries razzed the Pulitzers), Barry addicts were subsisting on such classics as his proposal for President Reagan"s 1984 campaign slogan: RONALD REAGAN: MOST OF HIS POLYPS WERE BENIGN.

These days, Dave Barry seems in danger of becoming an industry. The number of papers carrying his weekly column has soared past 400, including a daily in Thailand. Books bearing his byline now total 13, three of which were best sellers. Happily, none of that has undermined the silliness that got Barry elected Class Clown at New York"s Pleasantville High School. Just check out his latest book, "Dave Barry"s Only Travel Guide You"ll Ever Need." It"s not exactly a Proustian read, as the author acknowledges: "My books are shorter than the foreword to one of Norman Mailer"s." Still, it"s rich in travel tips, such as "Never board a commercial aircraft if the pilot is wearing a tank top."

Perhaps Barry"s head remains unscrewed because he never left Pleasantville High. His humor style is unabashedly sophomoric, perfectly attuned to the boomers who never grew up, either, and who comprise his biggest fans. "I kind of like sophomores," he shrugs. "Sophomores can be pretty funny." He tends to write long sentences with multiple jokes, many exhibiting a fascination with animal excretions (notably, "pig doots"). Like Robert Benchley, his boyhood hero, he"ll adopt the tone of a world authority, then make inane statements. He also has a gift for demented hyperbole. Sen. Bill Bradley possesses "the charisma of gravel," heavy metal sounds like "music to slaughter cattle by." He"s no dry wit; mostly, he"s the kid in the back of the class lobbing literary spitballs at Adult Stuff, such as NASA and its "Hubble Orbiting Space Paperweight."

Dave Barry in person is exactly what one would expect. With his Beatle bangs and chipmunk visage, this 44-year-old father of an 11-year-old projects the rugged, maturescent authority of Doogie Howser. Barry"s at The Miami Herald, his base of operations. The clippings on his office door, however, are strictly National Lampoon. Beneath a bumper sticker that sneers my KID BEAT UP YOUR HONOR STUDENT, a giant headline blares: HUSKY WOMEN SUBDUE DUCKS. Barry himself is turned out in polo shirt, jeans and bare feet. Why bare feet? "Because I get too many complaints when I go around totally naked."

Today Dave is doing his mail. He receives more than 400 letters a week, many suggesting news items for his periodic wrap-- ups on things that have been inexplicably exploding-cows, flounders, snails, toilets and human stomachs. The first letter in today"s pile contains a grievance: "Dear Dave: The Sixties are over. For crying out loud, GET A HAIRCUT!" Barry sighs, then recounts a shattering experience. Just the other night, while he and his son, Robert, were at a restaurant, the waitress asked Dave for proof of age before serving him a beer. Robert thought that was hilarious. Not so his dad. "Pretty soon he"ll look older than I do," Barry says. He slits open more letters, unearthing clippings about killer sardines, bottled deer urine and earrings made of Alaskan moose poop. Suitably cheered, Barry recalls the day he received an advertisement for a new antiflatulence product called Beano from-as Dave"s always saying, we are not making this up--Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Editors at The Oregonian in Portland considered the resulting column so indigestible that they killed it.

No dootbrain, Barry has devoted many minutes to analyzing his enormous appeal. His theory: "The world has gotten so scary-every day you read a statistic like "Three out of every five Americans have too much aluminum in their blood"-that people can"t cope anymore. So they really like to read something that"s not just lighthearted, but actually stupid. That a paper would pay someone to write a column about exploding carp is very reassuring."

As it happens, this humorist"s background is rife with tragedy. Barry"s father (Dave Sr.) and brother were alcoholics. His sister is an institutionalized schizophrenic. And his mother, who suffered from chronic depression, committed suicide. Fortunately, most of this hit Barry after he"d grown up. Nevertheless, he wrote a haunting column about his mother"s suicide, apparently prompted by her inability to face life after her husband"s death. An excerpt: "She would note the date each year on the calendar in the kitchen. "Dave died, 1984," the note would say. "Come back, Dave"." Four years after the column ran, Barry is still getting grateful notes from readers.

Apparently, it was Barry"s mother who begat his bent take on life. "My mom was the funniest person I"ve ever known," he says. Her fun also had a distinctly dark edge. When Dave headed off for a swim somewhere, his mother would lean out the window and, in perfect imitation of June Cleaver, chirp: "Don"t drown!"

After Haverford College, he played lead guitar with a determinedly awful band called the Phlegmtones ("People were always throwing up on our amplifiers") and joined a small paper in West Chester, Pa., called the Daily Local News. He specialized in zoning and sewage ("How to get sewage into all those zones"). Then came a brain-deadening stint with the Associated Press, "whose idea of good writing was an ability to correctly abbreviate Third District Court." Finally, a company that runs "effective writing" seminars for executives hired Barry as an instructor. He put in eight years. "The key was to teach them to be boring," he says. "Suppose you figured out a way to turn mayonnaise into platinum for one dollar a pound, and had to write a business report about that. Your goal should be to make sure nobody is still awake when you get to the part about the platinum."

Meanwhile, Barry was turning out weekly humor columns-at $22.50 each-for the Daily Local News, where his wife, Beth, was features editor. A small California syndicate began sending them around. The Miami Herald was impressed enough to hire their author for its Sunday magazine in 1983. Though The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have since made major moves on Barry, he"s happy in Miami, where he"s as big as Don Shula. He lives in a five-bedroom ranch, drives a "shit-kicker" Dodge van ("All it"s missing is a bumper sticker that says NO FAT CHICKS") and spends much quality time with two incorrigibly stupid animal companions: Earnest, "our large main dog," and Zippy, "our small auxiliary dog." Both make regular appearances in his column, especially when he"s grappling with such weighty ethical questions as "Is it OK to eat your dog?"

Fame has brought its fruits, not the least of which is the advent of the platonic Barry groupies. They send him naked pictures of themselves and invitations to drop by if he"s ever in town. Dave recognizes that it"s not his body that intrigues them. "In my columns," he says, "I"m willing to come right out and admit that men are slobs, which women always have suspected. But they love me for confirming it." Or maybe it"s political action they want a piece of, because Barry is running for president. He announced his candidacy in January, choosing as his running mate none other than Dan Quayle. "We"ve never had a vice president who"s done the job that he"s done with eyes that close together," Barry explains. But he wants to make one thing perfectly clear. "There are two areas I don"t intend to get bogged down in: foreign affairs and domestic policy."

Fine, Dave, but suppose voters don"t buy that platform. What do you still want to achieve in life? He gazes out the office window at a busy piece of Miami waterway. "Hardworking Miamians on their way to help the import-export program," he cracks. Come on, Dave, what about those Unfulfilled Dreams? He scratches his naked foot for a long moment. Finally, he owns up. "What I look forward to," he solemnly says, "is continued immaturity followed by death."

And if you call Dave Barry this week, what does his answering machine say? "Hi, you"ve reached the offices of Mario Cuomo for President. At the sound of the tone, please leave a message. Well, maybe you better not leave a message. No, go ahead and leave... No, maybe you better not ... Yeah, go... Well, no. . ."

New York has more commissioners than Des Moines, Iowa, has residents, including ... the Commissioner for Bicycle Messengers Bearing Down on You at Warp Speed with Mohawk Haircuts and Pupils Smaller than Purely Theoretical Particles.

Can New York Save Itself? (August 1987)

The Reagan administration ... has "deregulated" the airline industry. Airlines are no longer required to follow any rules whatsoever. They can show snuff movies. They can charge for oxygen. They can hire pilots right out of Vending Machine Refill Person School... Of course, certain restrictions do apply, the main one being that all these flights take you to Newark, N.J

Iowa"s Safe But You"ll Be Sorry (June 1986)

Yuppies have a very low birth rate, because apparently they have to go to Aspen to mate.

Yup the Establishment (March 1985)

Модальный глагол can – один из самых употребительных глаголов в английском языке. Чаще всего он используется, когда нужно выразить возможность совершить какое-то действие , иначе говоря, сказать “я могу сделать то-то”, “он может”, “вы можете” и так далее. Глагол could – это форма прошедшего времени глагола can, его мы также рассмотрим в этой статье.

Таблица: модальный глагол Can в утвердительной, отрицательной, вопросительной форме

You can solve your problems later. – Ты можешь решить свои проблемы позже.
We can watch this movie next time. – Мы можем посмотреть этот фильм в следующий раз.

Также вместо глагола can для обозначения возможности в будущем можно использоваться оборот will be able to, подробнее об этом читайте ниже.

2. Для выражения просьбы.

Используются can и could в вопросительной форме. Просьба с could звучит несколько вежливее, она используется в предложениях, обращенных к другому лицу (то есть не с местоимением I).

3. Для выражения запрета.

Глагол can’t часто употребляется, чтобы выразить запрет, то есть сказать не “вы не можете”, а “вам нельзя”.

4. Для выражения удивления, сомнения, недоверия.

Здесь есть много нюансов, многое зависит от контекста.

Сомнение с оттенком недоверия чаще выражается в отрицательных предложениях с глаголом в неопределенной форме:

He can’t swim across Lake Tahoe. – Да не может он переплыть озеро Тахо (недоверие, сомнение).

Удивление с оттенком сомнения, недоверия обычно выражено в вопросительных предложения с глаголом в неопределенной форме. В переводе часто используют слово “неужели”, чтобы был понятнее смысл.

Can this unicorn be real? – Неужели этот единорог настоящий?

Если в таком же вопросе использовать could смысл немного изменится. Получится что-то вроде:

Could this unicorn be real? – Разве мог бы этот единорог быть настоящим?

Часто таки предложения с can\could используются иронически, с сарказмом, например:

Could you buy more milk? – А ты еще больше молока не мог купить?
Could you wake up any later? – А ты еще позже не мог проснуться?

Но в этом случае большое значение имеет интонация и контекст. Один из героев сериала “Друзья” , Чендлер, подобные фразочки с “Could it be” так часто использовал, что его даже иногда передразнивали. К сожалению, эта особенность речи Чендлера почти не отобразилась в переводе.

5. Для выражения сомнения в случившемся

То есть я не верю в то, что нечто произошло. Схема: cannot + have + Past Participle (утвердительная или вопросительная форма).

Оборот обычно переводят с помощью “не может быть” или другого подходящего выражения.

He is my best friend, he cannot have betrayed me . – Он мой друг, не может быть, чтобы он меня предал .
Billy doesn’t have much money. He can’t have bought this car . – У Билли не много денег. Не мог он эту машину купить .
Can she have forgotten to pick up the kids from house? – Неужели она могла забыть забрать детей из дома?

Оборот could have + Past Participle

Отдельно следует рассмотреть оборот could have + (причастие прошедшего времени, третья форма глагола). Он может значить:

1. Действие, которое кто-то мог сделать, но не сделал

She could have married him but she didn’t want to. – Она могла выйти за него замуж , но не захотела.
They could have bought a house here 20 years ago but chose not to. – Они могли купить здесь дом 20 лет назад, но решили не делать этого.

Часто при этом присутствует оттенок упрека.

You could have helped me instead of just sitting there. – Ты мог бы помочь мне вместо того, чтобы сидеть здесь.
I could have done more to help you. Sorry. – Я мог бы сделать больше, чтобы помочь тебе. Извини.

2. Предположение, догадка о чем-то, произошедшем в прошлом

В этом случае, с несколько иным значением, могут быть использованы may have или might have , см. “ “.

Simon could have told her the truth. – Возможно , Саймон рассказал ей правду.
They could have overheard what we said. – Они могли услышать то, что мы сказали.

В отрицании и вопросе можно использовать can have + Past Participle , тогда получится оборот типа “Неужели…?” или “Не может быть…”, рассмотренный выше (п. 5 “Для выражения сомнения в случившемся”)

Can she have forgotten about our meeting? – Разве могла она забыть о нашей встрече?
He can’t have seen us. – Не может быть , чтобы он нас видел .

3. Предположение о чем-то, что в реальности не произошло

Этот случай относится к одному из типов условных предложений, подробнее о них читайте в .

I could have done well in my exam if I had worked harder. – Я мог бы справиться лучше с экзаменом, если бы лучше готовился.

Модальный глагол can и оборот to be able to

Глагол can в значении “быть способным сделать что-то” может быть заменен синонимичным оборотом to be able to + глагол (быть способным сделать что-то). Но между этими двумя способами выражения возможности есть разница.

Can \ to be able to в будущем времени

Обычно говорят, что оборот to be able to удобно применять, когда нужно сказать о возможности сделать что-то в будущем, потому что у глагола can нет формы будущего времени (нельзя сказать will can).

Но тут важно помнить такой нюанс.

Сам по себе глагол can может относиться к будущему. Например:

You can rest later. Now we have to work. – Ты сможешь (можешь) отдохнуть позже. Сейчас мы должны работать.
We can read this book tomorrow, let’s play videogames. – Мы сможем (можем) почитать эту книгу завтра, давай поиграем в видеоигры.

В будущем времени оборот be able to используется, когда мы говорим о возможности, способности, навыке, которого нет сейчас, но он появится в будущем. Глагол can НЕ может использоваться для выражения возможности, способности, которая появится только в будущем.

Правильно: I will be able to walk properly after the surgery. – Я смогу нормально ходить после операции.
Неправильно: I can walk properly after the surgery.
Правильно: will be able to work as a sailor. – Когда я закончу эти курсы, я смогу работать матросом.
Неправильно: When I complete this training course, I can work as a sailor.

Оба варианта, can или to be able to, можно использовать, говоря о решениях или договоренностях, относящихся к будущему:

The doctor can \ will be able to see you later today. – Доктор сможет принять вас сегодня попозже.
I can \ will be able to help you with your homework later. – Я смогу помочь тебе с домашним заданием позже.
I can \ will be able to give you a lift home tonight. – Я смогу подвезти тебя домой сегодня вечером.

Can \ to be able to в настоящем времени

To be able to звучит более формально, даже странновато. Все равно, что по-русски сказать не “я могу играть на гитаре”, а “я способен играть на гитаре”.

I can play a guitar. – Я могу играть на гитаре.
I am able to play a guitar. – Я способен играть на гитаре.
Michelle can умеет печь вкусные пироги.
Michelle is able to bake delicious cakes. – Мишель способна печь вкусные пироги.

Варианты с can используются намного чаще.

Can \ to be able to в прошедшем времени

Когда речь идет о способности или возможности, существовавшей в прошлом, можно использовать оба варианта:

When I was younger, I could мог помнить все лучше.
When I was younger, I was able to remember everything so well. – Когда я был моложе, я мог помнить все лучше.

Обратите внимание, что в прошедшем времени could обычно значит (в утвердительных предложениях) способность делать что-то вообще и не используется, когда говорится о каком-то разовом действии в определенный момент. Здесь по смыслу больше подходит to be able to .

Правильно: We were able to visit Mary on Monday, because she wasn’t busy. – Мы смогли навестить Мэри в понедельник, потому что она не была занята.
Неправильно: We could visit Mary Monday, because she wasn’t busy.

В отрицательных предложениях как couldn’t, так и wasn’t\weren’t able to могут использоваться и для длительных действий, и для разовых.

I couldn’t / wasn’t able to finish all my homework yesterday. – Я не мог закончить домашнюю работу вчера.
I couldn’t / wasn’t able to see the band at all from where I was standing. – Мне совсем не было видно (не мог видеть) музыкантов с того места, где я стоял.
I couldn’t / wasn’t able to drive when I was younger. – Я не умел водить машину , когда был моложе.