0
NL888 Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
Enter God?
1) Should "in the nineteenth century that things are" be "in the nineteenth century that things were"?
2) Does "Enter God" mean "Let God enter here"?
Context:
Given that the number of particles of any one type, say electrons,
is large, Swinburne thinks it too much of a coincidence that so
many should have the same properties. One electron, he could
stomach. But billions and billions of electrons, all with the same
properties, that is what really excites his incredulity. For him it
would be simpler, more natural, less demanding of explanation, if
all electrons were different from each other. Worse, no one electron
should naturally retain its properties for more than an instant at a
time; each should change capriciously, haphazardly and fleetingly
from moment to moment. That is Swinburne's view of the simple,
native state of affairs. Anything more uniform (what you or I would
call more simple) requires a special explanation. 'It is only because
electrons and bits of copper and all other material objects have the
same powers in the twentieth century as they did in the nineteenth
century that things are as they are now.'
Enter God. God comes to the rescue by deliberately and con-
tinuously sustaining the properties of all those billions of electrons
and bits of copper, and neutralizing their otherwise ingrained
inclination to wild and erratic fluctuation. That is why when you've
seen one electron you've seen them all; that is why bits of copper all
behave like bits of copper, and that is why each electron and each
bit of copper stays the same as itself from microsecond to micro-
second and from century to century. It is because God constantly
keeps a finger on each and every particle, curbing its reckless
excesses and whipping it into line with its colleagues to keep them
all the same.
2) Does "Enter God" mean "Let God enter here"?
Context:
Given that the number of particles of any one type, say electrons,
is large, Swinburne thinks it too much of a coincidence that so
many should have the same properties. One electron, he could
stomach. But billions and billions of electrons, all with the same
properties, that is what really excites his incredulity. For him it
would be simpler, more natural, less demanding of explanation, if
all electrons were different from each other. Worse, no one electron
should naturally retain its properties for more than an instant at a
time; each should change capriciously, haphazardly and fleetingly
from moment to moment. That is Swinburne's view of the simple,
native state of affairs. Anything more uniform (what you or I would
call more simple) requires a special explanation. 'It is only because
electrons and bits of copper and all other material objects have the
same powers in the twentieth century as they did in the nineteenth
century that things are as they are now.'
Enter God. God comes to the rescue by deliberately and con-
tinuously sustaining the properties of all those billions of electrons
and bits of copper, and neutralizing their otherwise ingrained
inclination to wild and erratic fluctuation. That is why when you've
seen one electron you've seen them all; that is why bits of copper all
behave like bits of copper, and that is why each electron and each
bit of copper stays the same as itself from microsecond to micro-
second and from century to century. It is because God constantly
keeps a finger on each and every particle, curbing its reckless
excesses and whipping it into line with its colleagues to keep them
all the same.
Top answer
NL888 1) Should "in the nineteenth century that things are" be "in the nineteenth century that things were"? No. It is talking about the present day.
- NL888 1) Should "in the nineteenth century that things are" be "in the nineteenth century that things were"?
- No.
- It is talking about the present day.
- NL888 2) Does "Enter ***" mean "Let *** enter here"?
- No.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
NL8881) Should "in the nineteenth century that things are" be "in the nineteenth century that things were"?No. It is talking about the present day.
NL8882) Does "Enter ***" mean "Let *** enter here"?No. It is like a play, where in the course of the action, or the debate, that the actor comes on stage. *** appears at this p
00
0
'It is only because electrons and bits of copper and all other material objects have the same powers in the twentieth century as they did in the nineteenth century that things are as they are now.' = Electrons and bits of copper and all other material objects have the same powers in the twentieth century as they did in the nineteenth century, and that is the only reason things are
00
NL888'It is only because electrons and bits of copper and all other material objects have the same powers in the twentieth century as they did in the nineteenth century that things are as they are now.'This is simply a different version of another sentence whose structure may be more understandable to you:
Things are as they are now | only because el
0
Related Questions