text:
- S. Ahmadi
- Tehran
- Iran
This conversation is closed.
is more than one God possible?
is more than one God possible rationally?
if there is more than one God why we do not feel any war between them?
if there was more than one God we would see their messengers.
according to holly books like Torah, Bible, Koran they mention one and the same God.
is there any evidence showing there is more than one God?
are deities believed to be God are real Gods?
what is real God? and what is non-real God?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
J AliJun 12 2011: Vasil...until now I think I or we have been arguing on one thing and you have been arguing on another.......I have been arguing and giving proofs that there is only one and you have been arguing that there can be more than one controller and someone who takes care of the universes affairs....
You can obviously see the big difference from the two arguments......
All my proofs were on one creator regardless of any definition........it is impossible for many creators......regardless of any definition of God from anyone.....there is only one creator
now if you want to argue with me that it is possible for more than one controller than i will argue with you on that issue too.......I believe it is impossible.....
first let me explain what actually is impossible and then later i will explain WHY....
what we are saying is impossible is that Power is shared between different ''gods'' with each of them not needing in his power for the other God or for the Creator....not That the creator gives power to the created but without giving him full power and independence from the creator.......
just so thats clear...... now the proofs will come up in the next few comments.....some will be from the Quran BUT will be fully explained in a philosophical and logical way hopefully......
indeed it is possible for the created to create a particle....but only through God on not independently.....the question then arises who created this thing that created the particle???
this question can keep going from each created until it reaches the final creator of all creators(through God) ...we claim he is the one Creator God.
if this question never ends it would be impossible because of infinite regress..........and infinite regress is impossible...
Jun 12 2011: How do you define "creator"? My definition is "someone who creates something in some fashion". The universe is not a single irreducible entity, and therefore, it isn't necessarily made by one creator (it could be, but not necessarily). The starter of time is one, but the creator of time isn't necessarily one, and neither is the creator(s) of matter necessarily the same creator as the one(s) of time.
It seems like you're arguing for a starter... the entity that started time. The one who, figuratively speaking, pressed the start button of our universe. Agree there can only be one such, but he's not necessarily a creator.
J AliJun 12 2011: I am saying that everything had a beginning and that there can only be one beginner......regardless of definition......as i have been asking you so many times....please read my comments in which i put forward some proofs....im not asking you to accept them without thinking...just read them and have a think.............this is the creator....
the creator is the thing which everything owes existence to...the thing which made things from nothing.......im not going to re write everything i said a few days ago just have a quick read of them please.....thanks......
the starter and the creator are one.........hehe just read the proofs please they have got nothing to do with definition.....
Jun 12 2011: "I am saying that everything had a beginning and that there can only be one beginner"
This still leaves you with an infinite regress. If EVERYTHING had a beginning, then God had a beginning, and God's God, and God's God's God, etc.
If this "everything" is not really "everything", then you're making a certain assumption by which you exclude God out of it. I suppose you're making the ex-nihilo/ex-materia fallacy, as made by the Kalam argument. You're using ex-materia causality to argue for ex-nihilo causality.
Here's an Anti-Kalam argument:
(i.e. an argument that takes the Kalam argument's assumptions, corrects the fallacy, and proves no such god exists after that)
If you say premise 3 is false (you can do that, since this premise is not backed up by evidence; it was simply migrated from the Kalam argument)... that there was some sort of supernatural matter that turned into what today we call "natural" matter, then it's possible that this matter was operated on by more than one supernatural being, i.e. more than one God.
Jun 12 2011: even though your definition is kind-of right even though it has some mistakes which i cannot explain right now because they are too long......
the question arises of who created this creator......until it reaches the final creator of all creators....
in other words i believe that there is a creator of creators who everything ends to in existence.......
i mentioned this clearly in my previous proofs......
Jun 12 2011: The reason why it doesn't cause an infinite regress is precisely because infinite regress impossible.....
that is that everything had a beginning.....this is clear, even scientifically........
there has to be a beginner and this beginner does not have a beginning or end....he is self existent....he does need a beginner only other things need him.........
The question of who created the creator is always mentioned in proving the creator in kalam arguments......that is that everything has a beginning and that infinite regresses are impossible therefore there must be something which everything ends to which has no beginning and is self existence.......so the question is therefore false and doesn't make sense because it is mentioned and answered in the proof of gods existence in the kalam argument......in fact it is part of the proof...
as for the youtube video, unfortunately youtube does not work where i am so i am sorry about that........every argument against the kalam argument is, from my point of view, false....
one of the people who gave an amazing concept of Wajib al Wujud is Avicenna (wajib al wujud meaning necessary being)
He is necessary because of infinite regress.....it makes part of the proof of his existence......
as for why this universe cannot be wajib al wujud is because this universe is made up of things.....these things are always being destroyed and have no existence.....like humans dying.....after he turns into dust he is not a human any more........this material world is made of material objects who need their material parts and particles.....even an atom needs parts....even parts need parts....until it stops existing......
therefore it is a universe of life and death of material objects which is obviously not Wajib al Wujud......
If u want more insight on this you should read what avicenna has to say on this as with many other islamic philosophers.......
Jun 12 2011: Also i mentioned many times before that when i say everything it means everything other than God...........
everything Mumkin " i.e. non necessary existent''
this has been stated so many times before in my previous comments....
again you are not reading the arguments well......
I challenge any one who can disprove islamic arguments of god's existence..........
I think the main reason why there are so many atheists in the west is because they think that the only proof of gods existence is what creationists usually use, that is intelligent design theory.......whereas Islamic philosophers put these proofs at the very end of their books......after Tens of philosophical, logical proofs from the like of The Quran (with explanation) and Avicenna, Sadr al din Al shirazi.....and so on......
Jun 12 2011: "Also i mentioned many times before that when i say everything it means everything other than God"
But why is God an exception to the rule? For the sake of removing infinite regress? If so, why not save a step, and say the universe itself is the real exception... that it had no beginning... that it always existed (but simply became "active" at the Big Bang), in the same sense you might say God always existed, but happened to start and/or create the universe at the Big Bang.
Jun 12 2011: This is the first time ive heard anyone call it a fallacy....maybe you just heard that in the youtube link which i can't see.........its not a fallacy unless every logician......famous and high in rank calls it one......you can't just call it one like that.........
this so called ''fallacy'' was used by the greatest logicians like Avicenna and Averroes and they obviously did not consider it a fallacy.............
I want to find a logician or philosopher who doesn't just dismiss the proofs just because he feels like that....i want real logical and philosophical proof of why islamic arguments are wrong........you can't keep asking stupid questions of who created the creator? learning from people like Richard Dawkins who think that because Evolution is correct, God is False...while there is no connection between God's existence and Evolution.........
Jun 12 2011: "learning from people like Richard Dawkins who think that because Evolution is correct, God is False...while there is no connection between God's existence and Evolution..."
Yes, there is no connection between evolution and God in general. However, there is a connection between the God of Abraham and evolution. An all knowing being that never lies should know better than to lie in its holy book, claiming he created all life as is from the start. If there is a God, he's not as described in the Quran. Either that, or Mohammad misheard what God was telling him, resulting in this, and potentially other flaws in the Quran. Or God actually lied when he said he doesn't lie. Either way, evolution renders the Quran as the imperfect word of an otherwise perfect God.
"its not a fallacy unless every logician......famous and high in rank calls it one..."
"The argument has been criticized [24] by such philosophers as J. L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, and Quentin Smith, and physicists Paul Davies and Victor Stenger."
OK, so maybe "fallcy" is not the best term... "the invalid premise of" is probably a better way to put it.
Jun 12 2011: Have you read the Quran, Vasil??
Can you please tell me where it clearly denies evolution??
in fact there is a verse which could possibly be mentioning evolution......
''When He created you by stages?'' Nuh, Quran.
Even if the Quran mentioned creating Adam from mud....it does not mean that before Adam there was no evolution....in some Hadiths it mentions that before our Adam there were a thousand Adams.....(thousand is the highest number in arabic, meaning plenty of Adams)
As regards to the Kalam Argument mentioned on wiki, i did not mention that in my comments..i mentioned all Muslim philosophy proofs in general.....like Imkan Wal Wujub by Avicenna and many others......and who from the names you mentioned can stand in front of Avicenna...regardless of his religion.....
As regards to Why the Universe can't be the exception the answer is because The universe is material as all scientists admit......materials move and events happen after each other, occurrences.
these movements must have a start otherwise we would have an infinite regress of movements and that is impossible....Who started them?? something must have started them......this something must not be material otherwise we would have the same problem with the material universe.....that is why Muslims believe God is not Material.......This universe Had a start somewhere regardless of whether there was pre- big bang or it was big bang only.........if there was pre big bang we would have the problem of infinite regress which i mentioned earlier......if it was Big bang then that would mean the beginning of the universe for the first time......the question arises again? Who started it, that is created it???
infinite regress is only logical on material existents.....We believe God is not Material so the problem doesn't arise again and again.......
I've always been curios why Richard Dawkins and people like him don't read More islamic proofs...i mean i've read the whole of the God Delusion with no fear...
Jun 12 2011: "Have you read the Quran, Vasil??
Can you please tell me where it clearly denies evolution??"
Is anything in the Quran ever clear? Of the stuff I've read, few things were.
I based that on the testimony of S.R. whom I previously asked how the Quran deals with evolution in this topic:
I admit I haven't personally read anything in the Quran, other than isolated verses quoted from him and other Muslims or atheists (which is different from the Bible, where I've read a few whole chapters, just to know the context in case someone says I'm taking the phrase out of context).
You can support anything if you take the "right" verses and interpret them the "right" way.
''When He created you by stages?''
That might refer to the way humans develop within an actual womb, 9 months and everything, especially if by "you", it is meant "you, the reader of the Quran".
Here's one that's blatantly false, though I see how it could be believed in pre-science times:
"'Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah."
Clay... yeah right... even if the clay is a metaphor, the mere fact it's created like the form of a bird, rather than evolving to one looks like a clear contradiction to evolution.
Jun 12 2011: The Quran is so clear.....maybe the translation is bad....but thats a totally different thing.....
with regards to the verse i said ''could possibly'' i did not say that it is talking about evolution........some Muslims believe the Quran hasn't mentioned evolution in the Quran or denied it......they could also be right....
as regards to the verse you mentioned.........totally, totally out of context and totally not false......its talking about a miracle performed by Prophet Jesus son of Mary to the Israelites .....it has got nothing to do with evolution or even how God created Birds and how they changed over time.......it is mentioning Miracles performed by Jesus.........
''When he created you by stages'' you in the verse is a translation of the Arabic for plural of more than three people......if you read the verse in Arabic it is without doubt talking to the humans in general and not to the reader of the Quran which sounds really funny......the arabic would have had to say Khalaqaka and not khalaqakum the first being for singular person and the second being for plural of more than 2 people.....that said, most commentators of the Quran talk of the womb stages also and I also follow them in that...
And do not forget the narration i mentioned where it says that before you (Humans) were a thousand thousand Adams.....
If you can find me one verse which contradicts science in the Quran, please tell me of them....im ready to answer all your questions......
atheists and christians so often misquote the Quran and take it out of context....Read translations and misunderstand......i encourage you to give it a read one day.......just see what it says.....
check this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran.html
And why are you not answering the rest of my arguments on God.....you keep answering only tiny sentences of mine while i answer everything you say......
Jun 12 2011: "And why are you not answering the rest of my arguments on God.....you keep answering only tiny sentences of mine while i answer everything you say..."
Because instead of taking each argument to its conclusion, you're diverging the topic into multiple ones I can't possibly cover unless I was to make a full documentary or something. We started with me defending that polytheism shouldn't be dismissed as impossible, because it's as likely as monotheism (since it's all speculation depending on the definition of "God"), went over to Kalam, we ended with evolution and the Quran. Those are three separate issues, and if I was to cover all of them, for every one of my answers, you'll likely throw several new claims per answer that have nothing to do with the original argument.
I'm attempting to resolve at least one of those topics to its full conclusion, rather than creating new ones by splitting my arguments on several fronts, as I'm sure you have a few more.
So... please pick an argument, and let's elaborate fully on it instead of diverging on several issues. Which one would it be? Evolution? Kalam? The possibility of polytheism? Contradicting characteristics of the Abraham god? Take your pick...
Jun 12 2011: For most of my comments I have been talking about polytheism........in some of my comments i mentioned God's existence and then you started asking me questions about it and about Kalam and you started bringing more and more arguments and questions.....you put us into all these topic...for me, i have answered everything you have put at me.....you haven't done anything so far..just going into different topics, asking questions which don't make sense......if you want to argue with me ......im fine with that, just read all of my previous comments and stop misquoting the Quran....I think this conversation is over between me and you...you can be arrogant or not choose to think of my arguments if you want....doesn't really matter anymore......
Have a good life ....
Jun 12 2011: When I use the word "argument", I'm using the term to simply mean a thesis that is to be debated (normally)... not a mutually arrogant disorganized chaotic scandalous conversation, like the one spouses have between themselves on conflicting issues... I'm talking about a rational philosophical conversations if you will.
My initial point is that the core of your argument is based on the Kalam argument, with further things solidifying it after it was taken as if it's a valid argument. Hence my link to the Kalam argument rebuttal. Why is this anti-argument not valid again?
If I'm missing the core, then do not answer the anti-Kalam argument, and INSTEAD please define what God is. We need a proper definition of what God is before we can (dis)prove it. What's the least amount of restrictions that you need to place on a supernatural being to define that supernatural being as "god", rather than something else?
Again, do one of those. Not both. Redefine "God" only if it's not the one the Kalam argument is about. If you're going to redefine it, don't prove it. Just define it, and let me see if there can possibly be more than one such being per your full definition.
Jun 12 2011: Vasil, you started the other topics with your questions on everything..... if you want the rational philosophical argument from me , then i have been giving it to you in all my comments.......I'm arguing with my self....because you never replied.....sending me links and probably not even understanding what i am saying.....everything i say your reply is always: ''WHY?''
I've been saying why for so many arguments....And you reply to short sentences in my comments which were just said for a bit of explanation......going on to other topics which are- at the moment- irrelevant........about your ''initial point'' how initial is this?? you only said this a few comments ago while I have been commentating for ages it just seems like you won't be convinced, and frankly I'm not really trying to sort of force you to convert or something......im just arguing...but with no one.....
I've asked you many times to actually read my comments before you start talking.....your arguments are weak, in fact they are not arguments at all....they are just illogical dismissals, whereas my arguments were fully philosophical and fully logical.......
There is a famous arab saying: If I argue with a scholar I win.....But if I argue with an ignorant person I always lose........I fully respect your search for the truth.....but you are very difficult, mainly because you do not argue back...
Anyway I think i've given you a lot of comments which are full of philosophy and have got nothing to do with the kalam argument, because the kalam argument is for the existence of God whereas I was talking about polytheism etc.......
You can read my comments.....maybe then you'll have time to argue with your soul.....
Jun 12 2011: All of your arguments (I did read them) are a ton of assertions, which is why I'm trying to make you clean it all up, and rebuild it with a minimal set of assumptions. The fewer assumptions you can make, the more likely your statement is to be true, though you're inevitably inviting more possibilities.
How am I suppose to argue with a larger set of assertions that happen to fit together? I can make my own such set, but it won't prove anything, because of all assertions that I make. I could've posed my earlier arguments in defense of polytheism as assertions. That wouldn't have made them true.
Take your first proof for example...
"what ever thing that exists and NEEDS is not god. because God NEVER needs. We need but god does not... if he did he would cease to be god."
This is all a chain of assertions towards the nature of whatever your definition of "god" is. And besides, just because a state of the supernatural might be with more than one God doesn't mean that either of those being NEEDS the other. The power of one might be (no... I'll use your style... the power IS) delegable to another. It's just that the gods might be (scratch that... ARE) "all loving" and therefore choose not to destroy themselves, because "all loving" must refer to them loving even the other Gods, not just our world.
Jun 13 2011: you haven't even understood them.......just argue with the proof.....you don't have to ask questions on parts of the proof which will take us into other topics......as for the part you quoted....I clearly stated in my comments that the reason God cannot need is because All Existence ends to him......Which means that his existence is self existent........Just think of existence itself.....does existence need anything???
it is impossible, if it were....nothing would exist....because before existence there would be nothing...and how can NOTHING give existence to existence......??
If you want to know why all things in this universe end to a God who is self-existent then just read ALL my comments really well.......you just quoted me without giving the reason i stated (doesn't have to be in the same comment, you have to read the rest.....)
I think the last part of your comment shows you didn't understand a thing i said.......I did not say the God's would need each other......i said the God would need...just have a good read of my comments......Existence cannot need.....it all ends to one existing being who is absolute..... why?? have a think about it..........If you believe in nothing before the big bang then you must admit in a God who is absolute leaving no room for other Gods.......if you believe in universes before the big bang then it has to end somewhere because of ad infinitum..........why it has to end to one god, only one, I've mentioned many times.......
Jun 13 2011: "Just think of existence itself.....does existence need anything???"
The universe exists, right? I think it's safe to assume that.
Therefore, does existence (of the universe) need anything (e.g. God)? By your logic, which I agree with, no. Therefore, by this same logic, the universe always existed (or if you prefer - it's "self existent"), and therefore there is no god having caused it. If there is a God or gods, it would be pantheistic god(s).
Now, I am making the assumption that the universe always existed, and we don't know that by any conclusive evidence. But assuming that the universe did not always exist (1) and that there is another thing outside of the universe which exits or exited (2) AND from which our universe came into existence by some means (3) is already 3 assumptions, none of which we have evidence for, and is therefore less likely.
Even if we grant those assumptions, we could apply the same logic to the supernatural (or "pre-natural"; however you'd call it) realm, and conclude it's possible that there is more than one being in that realm. Only one of them could've started our universe, but it would be possible that others were responsible for its creation.
Jun 13 2011: Vasil, I think I have given you a lot.....and you've given me a lot too......I don't think we are ever gonna reach a conclusion....thats the very annoying part of arguments....you think my arguments are irrational....i think yours are......it is just going to keep on going like this if we continue.....anyway, I hope one day you reach a conclusion that you like and see as right.....
I just want to say this, all my arguments were not based on my definition of God......just read them well.....theres no point to continue this argument with you.....we've both reached a dead end where i can't convince you nor can you..
Good Luck...
Jun 13 2011: How many times have i said why the Universe cannot have existed infinitely..please, please read my comments, or at least if you read one comment..finish it to the end.....it has a cause..It didn't exist....then it did.........AGAIN....you have failed to think about my comments or even read them.......I stated all the reasons in them....and I've said so many times why the universe could not have existed back in time forever...it had a beginning.....something must have started it.....if it was another universe that started it then the same question applies to that universe and so on.....it all has to end to some thing which was not caused....that thing always existed.....its reality is existence.....anyway I mentioned this and more in my previous comments....but you are showing me more and more that
you are not even reading my comments well...
Jun 13 2011: "How many times have i said why the Universe cannot have existed infinitely"
You don't know that. Just because everything we've ever observed had a cause doesn't mean that it's impossible that there was once a single event within our universe with no cause (e.g. the Big Bang, or a hypothetical earlier point in time).
If it's indeed impossible for ANYTHING to not have a cause, God must have a cause. If there is an exception, we don't know what the exception is, and whether it is part of our universe or not.
Again, this is the Kalam argument you're making (I'm not changing topic - this is the name of the argument you're already using and elaborating on in your post; I'm focusing only this premise, because everything else is a moot point without it). The argument "everything must have a cause, and the cause of everything other than God himself is God, and God was uncaused" is what Kalam is about. That's the reason I gave you a link to that anti-Kalam video. In the absence of evidence, this argument is not valid. Possible, yes, but not valid/certain/truthful, so to assert "the Universe cannot have existed infinitely" is simply making another unverifiable claim.
Time can't be infinite. In fact, that's what the current model of the Big Bang suggests - that time started at the Big Bang. But when you invoke God, you're already assuming it's possible that there is existence without time. So why not say the universe always existed, but time started at the Big Bang? It's the same thing with God - allegedly, he always existed (i.e. was without cause) without time, only in the case of God, you're asserting there is an extra realm for him to live in which satisfies the same characteristics which might as well be part of our own universe.
Jun 13 2011: Firstly.....did you read why I said the universe cannot have always existed??
secondly....ill quickly say why...........I KNOW that this universe didn't exist before...it was nothing...then it existed.
This has got nothing to do with time.....it has got to do with that the world is material......
it has more to do with the imkan wujub argument than with the kalam argument (and btw....i know these arguments well because I have been studying Islamic philosophy for a long time, I won't elaborate further because it is really complex and philosophical.).....
I think we have both agreed that there has to be something that has always existed......
Why this can't be the universe has got nothing to do with time.......
it cant be the universe because.....the universe is material
Firstly: if you believe that the big bang is the absolute beginning of this whole universe than there has to be a cause before it who has always existed as we both agreed......
if you believe in another form of our universe before the big bang....then because the universe is material.....as scientists say, it had movement....events happened after events....now these events have to end to one event because of ad infinitum..this one event is material aswell..so it goes back as well until movement stops, the existence of the universe stops......they can't have gone for ever in the past....they ended at one point and before that they didn't exist (because they are material)......regardless of time...
Therefore, God....hehe... we believe that God is immaterial...because of the problems mentioned above.
before you reply have a good think of what i said.......
Jun 13 2011: and also.....things in this material universe are always being destroyed...that is they stop existing......you cannot describe that as self existent.....a self existent being is existence itself..just think of existence...not material existence or immaterial existence....just existence.....and as you remember we both agreed that something always existed...
also if there was only the universe how do you explain life? as in human life....our feelings..etc.. these are all immaterial......the universe obviously didn't give us life (humans and all animals and living things)
Jun 13 2011: "it cant be the universe because.....the universe is material"
The fact that the universe is material doesn't remove the possibility that it always existed. All matter in our universe today ALWAYS existed at least from the Big Bang (possibly earlier; possibly from whenever time started) up until this moment, and will persist long after we're gone (whether it would be forever or to a certain end of time is a separate question).
When something was caused into existence or destroyed within the universe, it was always caused into existence or destroyed by the rearrangement of matter. To borrow a creationist metaphor, "A watch has a watchmaker", who made the watch from a previously existing metal, and this metal was made from previously existing lighter atoms, and so forth, down to the Big Bang. We haven't observed a case where something was created out of nothing - ex-nihilo creation. All we've ever observed was creation from matter - ex-materia creation. Same goes for destruction - a star being turned into a black hole is not a something (star) becoming nothing - it's a set of particles that we previously called a star being reconfigured into a configuration that has the characteristics of what we call a black hole. Something being burned doesn't make the matter is was made from disappear - this matter simply goes into the air in the form of what we call smoke, or on the ground in the form of what we call ashes.
Therefore, the statement
"things in this material universe are always being destroyed...that is they stop existing"
is false, strictly scientifically speaking. "Things" cease to exist, but not the matter they were made of, so "in this material universe" nothing is ever created or destroyed. There is never a nothing-to-something or something-to-nothing transition, or at least, we haven't ever observed any.
Jun 13 2011: ''The universe is material'' read the rest of it....ad infinitum and so on....and then answer it...
WHY do you keep ignoring the rest of the comment?!
Answer the Ad infinitum problem...which is because the universe is material.....please answer it....!!!.
when i said that things cease to exist i knew that that matter just changes into different form...so you haven't really brought anything new to me.......I meant that the thing ceases to exist...for example the Human.....he dies.....
what I then said is that you cannot call that self existent....it applies to all of matter......matter needs time and place....how is that self existent.......matter is limited..the universe is, whereas existence is everything and is not limited..if it were ''nothing'' would exist which is an obvious contradiction.......existence itself does not need.....the universe is moving always....movement must have started somewhere because this universe is material....ad infinitum and so on....I've probably repeated my comments like 10 times because you just ignore them.....
Please, please answer the rest of my comment.......its getting really annoying....
Jun 13 2011: "WHY do you keep ignoring the rest of the comment?!"
Why should I reply to every part of an invalid argument if I can just point the part where it gets invalid, and elaborate on why THAT is invalid? The fact I'm only quoting the invalid part doesn't mean I haven't read the entire post. I'm simply quoting only the invalid part so that you can see where I think the argument breaks. You can't seriously expect me to answer a premise that's based on another invalid premise. Rather, I am to respond to the invalid premise itself, not its derivatives, and I wouldn't mind if you do the same.
"what I then said is that you cannot call that self existent....it applies to all of matter......matter needs time and place....how is that self existent"
Even God by definition (the loosest possible one - "a supernatural being") needs something to exist - a supernatural realm (i.e. a different kind of space) to be in. Likewise, matter needs a kind of realm (space) to be in. That doesn't imply that this space didn't always existed. If that was the case, then suggesting that the supernatural realm didn't always existed by virtue of being a kind of space calls for an infinite regress.
The natural realm doesn't need time to exist. It only needs time to operate. The laws/properties of the universe only make sense in the context of time, but time is not necessary for the existence of matter in this realm - if we had ex-nihilo creation or destruction, then you'd have a point about time being required as well, since the existence of matter would then be different across time (before the event and after it).
Some realm must have always existed, and we don't know if it's our realm or not. Our realm requires itself... which is self existing right there, unless I'm misunderstanding the definition of "self existing".
"I meant that the thing ceases to exist...for example the Human.....he dies....."
He still remains a body with a brain that is off. He doesn't cease to be part of the universe.
Jun 13 2011: We can use our minds to make up stuff as well... that doesn't make what we made up true.
We can't trust our minds without having verified our conclusions in some way, which is one thing science is about.
And we can't let our minds make assumptions for stuff we base on unverified conclusions (i.e. assumptions) especially when taking cognitive biases into account. A logical argument only counts for knowledge if it's based solely on valid true factual premises. Anything less is simply speculation that one can't claim as knowledge before verifying the premises.
Jun 13 2011: ''. A logical argument only counts for knowledge if it's based solely on valid true factual premises.''
Why are you not trying to answer the infinite regress problem....??? maybe you can't, you keep ignoring it.....it is an argument in itself...now please answer it......
''. A logical argument only counts for knowledge if it's based solely on valid true factual premises.''
The mind can do just that......thats so obvious.....I don't know why you are telling me the obvious but not answering the infinite regress problem.....
As for god needing a realm.......we believe not...and islamic philosophy has many proofs for this.....logical, verified proof......which i will not mention because it is a different topic...
the part which you think was invalid....was not an argument in itself or part of one.....it was a sort of explanatory sentence........look at the argument....think of it and then for once please answer it.....the infinite regress one is really short....
Jun 13 2011: What infinite regress problem? If causality exists only in the context of time down to its start, and the universe always existed, even without time, there's no infinite regress.
"the universe is moving always"
Now that there is time, yes.
Movement/time started at the Big Bang according to the current scientific model. It might have started earlier, but it started somewhere for certain, so there's no infinite regress in causality in the context of our universe.
You're still assuming matter was created, which is not known. We've never observed matter created, so claiming with certainty that it was is an unsafe assumption. For the sake of avoiding infinite regress, there is only a need to invoke the supernatural and God with that assumption. There isn't a need to invoke it if you assume matter always existed, which is the exact same kind of break that you'd apply to God.
BTW, I'm not sure if you edited it at some point, or if I missed it, but because I just not saw you said you have no YouTube, here's the anti-Kalam argument itself:
"1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing ex nihilo.
P2: Given (1), Anything which begins to exist ex nihilo was not caused to do so by something which exists.
P3: The universe began to exist ex nihilo.
P4: Given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
P5: God is defined as a being which caused the universe to begin to exist ex nihilo.
C1: Given (4) and (5), God does not exist by definition."
And here's its elaboration in text:
Jun 13 2011: Time is always with matter....always.....because matter has movement...and time is always with movement....
what i mean by humans needing time is that they are limited to it....they can't exist yesterday....etc..
since when did i say that because the universe needs a realm it didn't always exist...that is another argument....
my argument is based on infinite regress, ad infinitum etc...
Jun 14 2011: thanks for the link, vasil...youtube is blocked here..
Forget the scientific definition of time for the moment..........you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without.......atoms are always moving.......everything is always changing........
the problem will always be there.....regardless of scientific time or scientific movement........
events occur always in the universe....no one can say that the universe was ever completely still in every single part of it,,,,,,it always had events.....these events must end at one point....and have a cause......
as for the anti kalam argument........it is impossible.....because it admits that the universe began ex-nihilo i.e. from nothing.........
nothing can also not start nothing...........onlu something existing can give existence......
anything which began existing from absolutely nothing needs something existing to start it .....
there is absolutely no proof for the first premise......
the whole argument against this kalam argument or any other similar argument is that the universe can go form to form infinitely....existing forever in the past and in the future.............this falls into the infinite regress problem....even without time.....because matter is always changing even without time......this change must stop somewhere......and be created from nothing....just because we haven't seen this, observed it, does not mean that it is logically impossible....it is necessary as the arguments are trying to say.......the key point is that there was something that gave existence to this nothing....making it into something after it was nothing........because nothing cannot give existence to something......only something existing can.......the whole anti kalam argument is terribly, terribly bad......it hasn't realised that even though we are saying that something MUST have existed forever.......we both agree on that......it could not have been the universe....
Jun 14 2011: In other words the universe has always been causing and happening and so on.....even without time.....otherwise it wouldn't be a material universe.....just ask any scientist....atoms are always changing and so on.......
this universe came from nothing......just imagine nothing....not in a scientific way where nothing is still something......because the infinite regress problem occurs where the universe changes from form to form even without the scientific time.....
________As in if the absolute beginning from nothing of the universe was the big bang.....then who caused the moments before the bang and after the big bang to come in to existence......
everything has a cause.....except for that thing which has to be the starting point with nothing before it........it can't be the universe as i am and have explained....
if you say that before the big bang there were always other forms.....then infinite regress comes in....that there cannot be an infinite regress of different forms of universe.......____________
Jun 25 2011: I tried really hard to see if your assertions are based on anything scientific... I've been watching a few documentaries trying to see what is an assertion and what is fact.
May I suggest the first season of the "Through The Wormhole" series with Morgan Freeman. Also BBC Horizon's "What Happened Before the Big Bang". Both were released in 2010, so they represent the latest in science.
(If you can't find them yourself, email me and I'll try getting you some links...)
All of your arguments assume that the Big Bang's assumptions (read: claims in the Big Bang theory that are NOT backed up by evidence) are correct. The mere existence of other coherent scientifically accepted theories shows those assumptions may not necessarily reflect reality. Among those assumptions are:
1) 4D space-time is finite.
2) 4D space-time has a starting point (=> It makes no sense to talk about "before" or "cause" since there was no time involved)
3) Matter exists only in 4D space-time.
4) 4D Space-time expands infinitely.
5) The matter (and inherently, energy) within 4D space-time is "everything".
ALL of those are challenged by the scientific community, as you can see in those documentaries.
The anti-Kalam argument goes a step further than I do - it suggests that even if the Big Bang assumptions are correct, it makes no sense to invoke God as a cause of it.
Premise 3 in the anti-Kalam argument is an assumption in the Big Bang theory (2 on the assumption list). This assumption might be false, but if it is, it means that there was "something (else?)" before "something" (on a universe scale, we're talking about "something" = "everything in the universe"). In other words, if premise 3 is false, there must have been something for God to work with in order to cause our universe into existence. There must've been a "supernatural matter" for him to act upon and turn it into "natural matter". Just because he was present and the universe appeared wouldn't make him the cause of the universe.
Jun 25 2011: But to play around with your argument...
There's no such thing as "scientific time". There's just "time" (we can make the assumption "time exists", though what exactly is time is a separate issue). If there is such a thing, there must be "non scientific time". To make the claim that there is "non scientific time" would be just another assumption (i.e. it's not evidence). One that you haven't even defined properly.
With that in mind, your argument
1) "Time is always with matter... always... because matter has movement... and time is always with movement"
shoots itself by your later point
2) "you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without... atoms are always moving"
If both are correct ("with scientific time or without" being a particular key here), then time is infinite, matter is eternal and therefore there's no God required.
"these events must end at one point... and have a cause..."
That's a contradiction right there, in just one paragraph. If every event has a cause (keeping in mind that a "cause" of an event is another event) AND it needs to end at some point, it means the first event must not have a cause for it. Hence the Big Bang's assumption that it's the first event.
If you disregard this assumption (you could, since it may be false), you're making the assumption of another event's existence prior to it - God's starting and/or creation of the universe - and another event - God's creation - which you then label as the first event. There is no evidence of those two extra assumptions, so by the power of Occam's Razor, not having God is more likely.
Jun 27 2011: With that in mind, your argument
1) "Time is always with matter... always... because matter has movement... and time is always with movement"
shoots itself by your later point
2) "you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without... atoms are always moving"
Time exists with matter....your definition of time is scientific.....anyway I will not be going into this deeper but I have a very important book for you to read......below...
"these events must end at one point... and have a cause..."
That's a contradiction right there, in just one paragraph. If every event has a cause (keeping in mind that a "cause" of an event is another event) AND it needs to end at some point, it means the first event must not have a cause for it. Hence the Big Bang's assumption that it's the first event.
No that is not a contradiction......because I said that there must be a first cause...but I also explained that it cannot be the universe itself or the big bang..The big bang claims it is the beginning of the universe..but not the first cause......Yes....the first cause does not have a cause......but you claim it is the Universe while I claim it is God.......I explained previously why it cannot be the universe......
''If you disregard this assumption (you could, since it may be false), you're making the assumption of another event's existence prior to it - God's starting and/or creation of the universe - and another event - God's creation - which you then label as the first event. There is no evidence of those two extra assumptions, so by the power of Occam's Razor, not having God is more likely.''
Evidence that God is the cause of causes is philosophical proof........Occams razor only applies (if it does) when there are possibilities.......while God being the cause of causes is philosophically a fact and not a possibility...I recommend you read Al Shifa' by Avicenna.....which, sadly is not studied in universities..
Jun 27 2011: Vasil, every single scientific possibility on the universe still brings up the infinite regress problem..........if the big bang was the absolute beginning then that proves God......if it wasn't then we have the problem of infinite regress........if you believe that the universe has existed eternally, then scientists all agree of causes also existing always.......which still brings up the infinite regress problem......if no-time were infinite ....we would not be here today.
As for scientific time.....you were claiming that time possibly didn't exist until after the big bang.....so I just called it scientific time for you to understand better....even though there is only one time.....which keeps everything from happening at once....and happenings have always been happening.....I didn't just invent a new word....just for better understanding of what you and I were actually trying to say to each other.....
''"Time is always with matter... always... because matter has movement... and time is always with movement"
shoots itself by your later point
2) "you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without... atoms are always moving"''
it does not shoot me...because I only said that (scientific time or without it) for sake of argument, because you claimed that time could possibly have not existed.....I thought that was clear...sorry if it wasn't...Matter cannot be eternal for the reasons which I have explained......
Vasil, I really appreciate that you have thought hard about this....and I think you are very close to grasping it.....I really respect the way you think and your love of knowledge.....with that, I hope you can read this very important book.....if the translation is vague you can ask for clarification....
Read this important book....- Our Philosophy by the great Muslim philosopher Muhammed Baqir Al Sadr..
Jun 27 2011: ''(=> It makes no sense to talk about "before" or "cause" since there was no time involved)
(keeping in mind that a "cause" of an event is another event)''
A cause has got nothing to do with time.......this is something important......for a scientist a cause is an event which makes another event happen (then, time exists).......while a Muslim Philosopher would say that an event of time is a cause of something else to happen but not a cause of its existence.....when we say God is the cause of causes.......we mean that he is the cause of existence.....he created the universe......then the universe, being material, began causing events and happenings, but it did not start creating from nothing.....I will make this clear in my next comment..
I don't think I have explained this well, but in the link of the book I gave you it is explained very well and in a good objective way.......Vasil, I think that book has all the answers you want from me....so I highly highly recommend that you read it..I seriously think that if you had a very good insight on philosophy, you would know what I am trying to say....maybe I am not explaining it right...as I have only studied philosophy in Arabic...I apologize if that is the case but anyway.
One thing I would like to say is that I haven't seen any philosopher reasonably refuting Avicenna's proofs or the Kalam argument properly..I believe that they cannot be refuted....Avicenna's books aren't even studied in universities......I think that Muslim Philosophers' books should be studied in universities....Mulla Sadras books should also be studied...... Islamic Philosophy has no more importance to the west as it used to, even though it is still a mighty mighty philosophy..these are very great philosophical books which should be studied somewhere.....
.Good luck.
Jun 27 2011: Difference between a cause when a materialist or scientist uses it ......and when a Philosopher uses it......
A philosopher: A cause is something that gives existence to something.....so something did not exist at all....it was nothing...and then this cause gave it existence....it gave it matter.....
a simple analogy (just as an example for clarification, not the same thing with God) is when you, through your mind, start imagining something...for example you can imagine an Everest sized mountain of Gold and Silver even though it doesn't exist outside in reality....you are causing it to exist in your mind...
A scientist: (roughly) : something which causes something else to move, to happen, for action to happen, a phenomena, a condition and so on.. a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition etc...
.....a cause here does not cause something to exist.....the thing already exists....
in short....... the giver of existence is a cause, says the Muslim Philosopher, The cause of movement and action, eventw etc... is what a cause is.. says a materialist....
Anyway, I stop here.....you can read the book which I gave you the link to.
Jul 7 2011: "Difference between a cause when a materialist or scientist uses it... and when a Philosopher uses it..."
That's one of the reasons such arguments persist, despite being weak ones - philosophers take scientific theories with philosophical definitions in mind, and try to derive scientific claims based on those definitions. But the different definitions aren't compatible for the issues discussed, so a mixture of them is not a thing that should be done.
I've started reading the book you linked me too, but the initial assumption that a soul exists is already discrediting the book, and so is the fact it starts with social issues rather than by trying to define things.
Let's try to agree what we mean when we say "cause". What do you mean by that word?
Generalizing the concept down to every single instance I've ever heard it used, I could say that a cause is an event that occurs before another event. An "event" is a change from one "state" to another. And a "state" is a configuration of anything (including "everything" and "nothing") regardless of whether there is any sort of matter or not. The words "before" and "change" though only make sense in the context of time. Whether you call it scientific or not is irrelevant. Time in both cases is some sort of a sequence of events occurring over a configuration with certain characteristic (e.g. finiteness - whether a configuration is finite or infinite is still a characteristic of it).
Based on this definition, if there is a first cause, it means this first cause is an event that has no cause for it, and like every event, this one was a change from one state to another. In the case of both God and the Big Bang, we're talking about the change from the state of nothing to the state of something. The difference is that this "something" is either God or "everything" (assuming there's nothing before the Big Bang). If you go about the "something can't come out of nothing" route, there can't be a first (uncaused) cause.
Jul 8 2011: Hi Vasil,
''I've started reading the book you linked me too, but the initial assumption that a soul exists is already discrediting the book, and so is the fact it starts with social issues rather than by trying to define things.''
Don't be too quick to judge.. you're still in the INTRODUCTION which the author states is not part of the book...the introduction is on social issues...this book is from the 50s-60s in Iraq...the actual book starts from part one....I guarantee you that anything he will say in the book will not be 'initial assumptions'...continue reading the book...just read with an open mind. I'm worried that the translation is vague...so if there is anything which is not clear please feel free to ask me as I have the original Arabic with me...
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.


text:
Wilson County News 1012 C St Floresville TX 78114 Ph: 830-216-4519 Fax: 830-393-3219 Email:
Sunday, Sep 14, 2014
Not a subscriber? Click here.
Are you a WCN subscriber?
Set up your password.
Remember me
Forgot password?
Weekly News Stories
Weekly News Stories
• Section A: General News
• Eagle Ford News
• Obituaries
• South Texas Living
• Occasions
• Sports
• Agriculture Today
• The 411: Youth
• Special Section
• Wilson's AUTO Chooser
• Wilson's List/Classifieds
BURN BAN: In Effect
BURN BAN: In Effect
• Burn Ban Status
Special Features
Special Features
• Community Calendar
• Daily Updates via E-Mail
• Make Us Your Home Page
• Military Subscriptions
• Newspapers In Education
• Trial Subscription
• Links
• Weekly Headlines in Print
• Consumer Updates
• Funeral Notices
• National News
• Meeting Agendas
• Breaking News
• Election Coverage
• Scam Central
Living Blogs
Living Blogs
• A Gift of Self
• A Salute to Our Military
• Community Calendar
• Church Directory
• Everyday Journeys
• Gardening Q&A
• Keeping the Faith
• On The Road To Forever
• Reunions
• Rose Petals
• Savvy Senior
• Tips from the Coupon Queen
• Wilson County Garden Day
• Wilson County History
Fun Stuff
Fun Stuff
• Facebook
• Movie Reviews
• Twitter
• Video Vault
• YouTube
Opinion Blogs
Opinion Blogs
• Commentaries
• Headlines & Between the Lines
• One Opinion
• Political Soaps
• Time Warp
Sports & Outdoors
Sports & Outdoors
• Fishing Report
• NASCAR News
• Reb's Race Report
• Sports Scores, Playoffs, Updates
• Wilson's List/Classifieds
• Wilson's AUTO Chooser
• COUPONS: Print & Save!
• Showcase of Homes
• Yellow Pages
Photo Galleries
Photo Galleries
• -Weekly Photos
• Floresville Opry-May 2014
• Gallery-Severe Weather 2012
• Photo Contest�Deer Blinds
• Photo Contest�Facebook
• Photo Contest-Springtime
Special Publications
Special Publications
• Eagle Ford Directory
• Floresville Visitors Guide
• La Vernia Chamber Directory
• La Vernia News
• Medical Directory Guide
• Real Estate Guide
• Business Review Submission
• Community Calendar Submission
• Classified Ad Submission
• FREE Yellow Page Submission
• Gift of Self Submission
• Letters to the Editor Submission
• Obituary Submission
• Reunion Submission
• Engagement Announcement
• Wedding Announcement
• Ad Rates, Display
• Ad Rates, Classified
• Ad Rates, Internet
• Distribution, Coverage Area
• Photo Reprint Pricing
• Upcoming Promotions
• Take a Closer Look at WCN
• Showcase of Homes-Rates
• Terms of Use
• Your Eagle Ford Source
Contact Us
Contact Us
• Contact Us
• Email Alerts
• Newsstands
• News Tip Line
• Staff/History
• Subscribe Today!
Preview the Paper
Report Comment
Please complete the form below in order to alert us to the following comment. If you have questions about our policy regarding comments please
reference our Terms of Use page
The Hard Truth
End Times
June 28, 2008 1:05pm
You are truly in error. The old "they have been saying it for years" thing is just a quick way out for the unbeliever. Gods time is NOTHING like ours. And He did not say that it would happen over night. It in fact does occur over the years, quickening toward the end.. The time to His second coming is that like birth pains, and it occurs over a vast of time. Each contraction getting closer together in succession as the moment arrives. I'm sorry, but you can NOT argue the prophecies. They are coming to pass everyday now in our Godless society. There has never been a time in history that our planet has been in such peril as it is now, and if you READ, you will see it even mentions that. You can mock and try to disprove all you want, but you can't. You're just making a fool out of yourself. You say vague? Well, imagine if you can, being told of the future, and seeing things that you have never seen before or heard of, how else would you explain in words what you have seen or heard. These great men of God wrote as best they could to explain what was to come. Of course, that leaves open the argument of the weaker spirited or minded to come and say that it's all "vague". YOU yourself are even fulfilling prophecy as an unbeliever. It is written that people such as yourself would be the ones who come to persecute Christians by their words and actions. To mock them for their belief and try to lead them AWAY from God.
And by the way .. you say people like yourself are trying to "rescue us" .. I have to laugh. There is NOTHING to rescue us from. Even if God wasn't real, there is nothing wrong with being a Christian. To be a true Christian is to live a better life WITH God in it, than any other here on earth. You learn to be without DOUBT, you learn to live with better understandings, you learn to Love, you learn to Save, and so much more through time. And oh no!!! you don't learn this all on your own... It's God. I'm sorry, I do NOT need "rescuing" from that. YOU are the one who needs rescuing before it's too late.
You haven't done research, you have only been deceived. You are only fulfilling what the father of deception and lies would have you do.. or you wouldn't be trying so hard to disprove what you can't. I do believe I will stick to Knowing that God exists, and continue receiving His blessings...
By the way, other posters here. If you really want some good insight of today's events and fulfilling of prophesies, please visit this Christian site. It is FULL of news and info!
Get Saved and Stay Saved.. There truly isn't much time left at all.. The world around us and it's actions prove this. And most importantly.. God Proves It to us Every day!
Your Full Name:
We will not publish your name or e-mail address as a result of reporting this comment. We request this information in the event that we need to contact you with follow-up questions. You will not receive any unsolicited e-mail by using this form.
Your E–Mail:
< Select One >
Invasion of Privacy
Personal Attack
Your Comments:
Copyright © 2014 Wilson County News. All rights reserved.
Web development by Drewa Designs

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Visit our other Wisconsin Historical Society websites!
Refine or narrow your results by clicking any term in the gray boxes below.
Expand your results by removing any breadcrumb in a gray outlined box above. Click on the blue "X" to remove the term.
Narrow your results by entering a keyword into the search box above. Then click the "Search Within" checkbox, then click on the orange "Search" button.
If you did not find what you are looking for or you did not get any results, try changing your search term(s). See our Search Help page for more tips.
Community: Lincoln
County: Vilas
Historic Name:
Reference Number: 132398
Community: Racine
County: Racine
Historic Name: CEMETERY PARK
Reference Number: 11494
Community: La Crosse
County: La Crosse
Historic Name: La Crosse Public Landing
Reference Number: 38324
Reference Number: 132399
Community: Pelican
County: Oneida
Historic Name: Breezy Point
Reference Number: 107664
Community: Wauwatosa
County: Milwaukee
Historic Name: Upper Menomonee River Parkway Drive
Reference Number: 206161
Reference Number: 132036
Community: Fort Atkinson
County: Jefferson
Reference Number: 126520
Community: Mequon
County: Ozaukee
Reference Number: 75361
Community: Spring Grove
County: Green
Reference Number: 89043
Reference Number: 132060
Community: Janesville
County: Rock
Historic Name: Vista Park
Reference Number: 86961
Community: Lac du Flambeau
Historic Name: Peterson's Housekeeping Cabins
Reference Number: 132416
Community: Sevastopol
County: Door
Historic Name: COOPERATIVE ORCHARDS
Reference Number: 25900
Reference Number: 132037
Reference Number: 126521
Community: Elmwood
County: Pierce
Historic Name: Waterworks Plant
Reference Number: 120149
Historic Name: Duck Lake Resort
Reference Number: 132407
Community: Oak Creek
Reference Number: 56553
Community: Presque Isle
Reference Number: 132127
If you didn't find the material you searched for, our Library Reference Staff can help.
Call our reference desk at 608-264-6535 or email us at:
© 1996-2014 Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706


text:
Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider. WorldNow and this Station make no warranties or representations in connection therewith. If you have any questions or comments about this page please contact email@example.com.
SOURCE Ideomed
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., June 20, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Ideomed, Inc., a Michigan-based developer of mobile health solutions, recently received word from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) that its mobile health app Abriiz meets the definition of a "medical device" for which the FDA intends to exercise "Enforcement Discretion." This designation identifies mobile medical devices that "are not subject to further FDA regulatory requirements at this time." This news clears the way for Abriiz to be connected to other FDA-regulated devices including blood glucose monitors, pulse oximeters, scales and blood pressure cuffs.
The FDA's recent Mobile Medical Applications report indicated that its stance would be to take a tailored, risk-based approach that focuses on the small subset of mobile apps that meet the regulatory definition of "device." For many mobile apps that the FDA deems as a "device" but pose minimal risk to patients and consumers, they will exercise enforcement discretions and will not expect manufacturers to submit premarket review applications or register their apps.
Lisa Schutte, Ideomed's Vice President of Technology, said, "The patient information provided by this expanded breadth of function, combined with the medication adherence, activity-tracking and health symptom data already captured by Abriiz provides a more comprehensive picture of a patient's health and condition. This enhances our ability to provide value to patients and care providers managing chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, COPD and asthma. It also affirms Ideomed's mission to improve the quality of life for the people we serve."
On the market since 2011, Abriiz has already been used in clinical trials and other implementations that have reported sustained daily engagement, improved health outcomes such as fewer emergency room visits, improvements in patient risk level stratification and reduced costs to insurers.
Leaders in the mobile health sector have responded positively to the FDA's innovation-friendly approach to regulating entrepreneurial development.
"Ideomed's innovative solution using smartphones to support chronic disease has the potential to significantly impact patient care in positive ways," says Morgan Reed, Executive Director of the Washington, D.C.-based ACT|The App Association. "Ideomed's Abriiz solution has already demonstrated dramatic success in early clinical trials. Helping patients better manage their chronic conditions means better health outcomes and lower costs for everybody. Given the remarkable promise that Abriiz holds, we are not surprised it was one of the first mobile health solutions to be formally reviewed by the FDA following the introduction of its Guidelines on Mobile Medical Applications."
And, certainly, Ideomed's well-known technology leader is very encouraged by the FDA review and what it means for Abriiz's future.
"We are encouraged by the FDA's well-balanced approach to encouraging innovative development in mHealth while rightfully ensuring the nation's safety in their assessment process," said Keith Brophy, Ideomed's CEO. "The FDA's response to our request affirms our expectation that the manner in which Abriiz surfaces consumer health device data is on the mark. We look forward to continuing to expand our approach integrating Apple's HealthKit and other technologies to leverage a broader array of health device data in the future."
CONTACT: Brian Mack, 616-242-0821 ext. 102
Photo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20140619/119596
©2012 PR Newswire. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Food & Recipes
Beyond Thanksgiving: A Week of Healthy Meals and Recipes
Tuscany Meatless Sandwiches
WebMD Weight Loss Clinic members: Journal as: 2 slices bread + 2 ounces of low-fat cheese + ½ cup vegetable with 1 teaspoon fat.
1 large slice sourdough or French bread, or a 7-inch-long baguette half
About 7 large fresh basil leaves
1/2 teaspoon olive oil (flavored or extra-virgin)
3 large, thick slices of fresh mozzarella cheese (about 1.5 ounces)
1/2 large vine-ripened tomato, thinly sliced
1/2 teaspoon balsamic vinegar
1. Cover the bread with fresh basil leaves. Drizzle 1/2 teaspoon olive oil evenly over the basil. Top that with fresh mozzarella slices.
2. Broil sandwich, watching carefully, until cheese is melted and starting to lightly brown in spots (about 5 minutes in a toaster oven).
3. Lay tomato slices on top of the mozzarella, then drizzle 1/2 teaspoon of balsamic vinegar over all.
Yield: 1 open-face sandwich
Nutritional Information: Per open-face sandwich: 314 calories, 18 g protein, 35 g carbohydrate, 11.5 g fat (5.3 g saturated fat, 4.4 g monounsaturated fat, 1 g polyunsaturated fat), 23 mg cholesterol, 3 g fiber, 560 mg sodium. Calories from fat: 33%.
Dinner: Now for something completely different from tomorrow's meal and easy to fix -- how about chili and cornbread? You can make the chili anytime during the morning (even the day before). Then just add it to the slow cooker and keep it warm until you're ready to serve. Beef & Beer Chili is a mild slow-cooker favorite -- add extra chili powder, cayenne pepper, or jalapeno if you want a hotter chili.
Beef and Beer Chili
WebMD Weight Loss Clinic members Journal as: 1 cup hearty stew, chili, starches soup.
2 teaspoons canola oil
1 pound beef top round (such as London broil), trimmed of fat and cut into 1/4-inch cubes
1 cup finely chopped onion
2 teaspoons minced or chopped garlic
1 teaspoon paprika
2 to 3 teaspoons chili powder
1/2 teaspoon ground cumin
1 teaspoon dried oregano flakes
14 1/2 ounce can Mexican-style stewed tomatoes (or similar)
1 cup light or non-alcoholic beer (beef broth or water can be substituted)
1 to 2 teaspoons finely chopped jalapeno pepper, halved and seeded (optional)
15-ounce can low-sodium kidney beans (or pinto beans), drained and rinsed
Finely minced onion for serving (optional)
Grated reduced-fat sharp cheddar or Monterey Jack cheese (optional)
1. Heat the oil over medium-high heat in a large, nonstick frying pan or skillet. Add beef, onion, and garlic, stirring occasionally, until browned (about 3 minutes).
2. Spoon beef mixture into crock pot. Add paprika, chili powder, cumin, oregano, and stewed tomatoes (including liquid), beer, jalapeno if desired, and beans. Stir to combine. Cover and turn crock pot on LOW. Cook 8-10 hours.
3. Sprinkle each serving with minced onion and grated cheese if desired.
Related to Healthy Eating & Nutrition
Today on WebMD
WebMD Recipe Finder
Browse our collection of healthy, delicious recipes, from WebMD and Eating Well magazine.
Loaded with tips to help you avoid food allergy triggers.
Sending your email...
This feature is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later.
Now check your email account on your mobile phone to download your new app.


text:
Digital Sports Watch
Product Code: CAPWDA0009
Minimum Quantity: 100
Dimensions: 38mmDia
Price includes 1 Colour 1 Position Print
For extra print colours POA
- Silicon sports watch with buckle mechanism and digital module.
- Imprint on dial.
- Showerproof only
- Packaging: PSL Design Box
Colour Options:
Grey, Ice Blue, Lime Green, Orange, Purple, WhiteBlue (PMS 286C), Grey (PMS Cool Grey 11C), Lime Green (PMS 7488C), Orange (PMS Hexachrome Orange C), Red (PMS 186C), White.
Customised colours - 200pcs MOQ (POA)
Branding Area:
22mm Dia
Delivery Times:
Approx 3-4 Weeks
Quick Quote Request
Prices in the above table are specified for the common branding options applied to a single position. For a quote on larger logo sizes or extra colours/positions please contact your Promoshop® representative on 1800 855 143 or type your details in the panel below:


text:
Exhibition Application
Visual artists who reside in Watauga County or any adjoining county for a portion of the year are encouraged to apply to have a month-long exhibition of your artwork. There is no specific deadline. Applications are reviewed in groups approximately four times per year. Artists must be a Watauga County Arts Council member to apply.
A gallery reception is hosted by the Arts Council each month on the second Saturday evening to celebrate each new exhibit.


text:
At the heart of Organic India is our commitment to be a living embodiment of consciousness in action. We work with thousands of family farmers in India who cultivate tens of thousands of acres of organic farmland. Organic India actively promotes sustainable agriculture and pays a premium market rate to our farmers. All our products promote wellness and are certified organic. Each product you hold in your hands is one link in a chain of love, respect and connectedness between our farmers and you. By choosing Organic India you are completing this chain, which gives training and a living wage to the Indian farmers, creates a sustainable environment and brings happiness and well being to you.
Availability: Usually Ships Within 24-48 Hours
Organic India Chyawanprash 100% Organic Herbal Jam - 8.8 oz. (250g)
Chyawanprash is an ancient Ayurvedic herbal jam, widely used in India, as a rejuvenative, energizer and immunity booster. It is said that Chyawan Rishi, the first to prepare this tonic over 5,000 years ago, used it to regain his own youth and longevity. Chyawanprash is often called the "elixir of life" due to its many nutritional properties.
Chyawanprash - "The Elixir of Life"Organic India is introducing a new and exciting product so you can get all kinds of goodness from a delicious and nutritious jam made from wild forest fruits high in antioxidants and a whole heap of healing herbs. Organic India's 100% organic Chyawanprash (CHAI-en-prah-sh) is made from the original Ayurvedic recipe developed by the sages living in the forests of the Himalayas and is the real deal! It is rejuvenating, energizing and boosts the immune system, and often called "The Elixir of Life."
How to Use It?Chyawanprash can be spread on wholesome breads or crackers, added to smoothies, or as a healthy snack just eaten right out of the jar with a spoon! Traditionally in India, it is stirred into a warm glass of milk. It is naturally sweet, using mineral rich gur (organic cane juice that has been slowly reduced to a thick syrup, somewhat like maple syrup) and organic honey, and has that authentic taste of the spices of India. Goes great with a cup of Tulsi: Tulsi Original, Tulsi Chai Masala and Tulsi Red Chai.
Health BenefitsChyawanprash is helpful to everyone, regardless of age, by creating harmony in the body and improving metabolism. Well-known as an immunity booster, Chyawanprash also excels as an antioxidant, rejuvenator, and source of energy. With Amla (Eblica officianalis) as a main ingredient, Chyawanprash also serves as a rich source of vitamin C and antioxidants.
Specific Benefits of Chyawanprash Include:
The Perfect Blend of Ayurvedic HerbsOrganic India's 100% Organic Chyawanprash contains 36 herbs in a sweet base made from gur (organic cane juice reduced to a syrup) honey and ghee (clarified butter). Organic India recommends one teaspoon twice daily for maximum benefits. Organic India uses raw honey in their Chyawanprash, which is added after the heating process. Each jar contains 8.8 oz., or approximately 25 servings.
Herbs include:
The History of ChyawanprashThe sage Chyawan is believed to have discovered the formula in the 4th century B.C. According to the principal Ayurvedic text Charaka Samhita (ca. 100 A.D.), Chyawanprash "nourishes the weak, the wounded, the old, and those that are of tender years as well." Using Chyawanprash, "a person acquires intelligence, memory, comeliness of body… longevity, strength of the senses, great pleasure in the companionship with women, great increase in the strength of the digestive fire, improvement of the complexion, and the restoration of wind to its normal course."
About Organic IndiaOrganic India was formed as a labor of love. Organic India began working cooperatively with farms in northern India to grow Tulsi ~ Holy Basil which was used to create their flagship product, the Original Tulsi Tea. Encouraged by the success of this project, Organic India contracted with more farmers and expanded their program to include other Indian herb, food and spice crops. The guiding principal of Organic India's company is to honor and protect the Earth by utilizing sustainable, organic and biodynamic agricultural practices and to provide a sustainable living for the farmers and tribes people they work with in India.
All of Organic India's farmers and tribal wildcrafters are trained and educated by their team and by associate experts in all aspects of organic, sustainable and biodynamic agricultural practices. Organic India pays all the fees associated with acquiring the necessary organic certifications for them, and then they purchase the crops and wildcrafted herbs that they produce at a premium market price. The farmers also rotate between growing crops on their land for Organic India with food crops for themselves and their families. This means that the farmers, wildcrafters and their families are supported by a sustainable income, while at the same time improving and preserving their own health and natural environment.
All Organic India farmers are certified organic according to NOP standards. All of Organic India's facilities have been awarded SQF, HACCP, USDA, and GMP certifications, and they have obtained kosher certification for the majority of their products. Organic India has developed advanced processing methods and dehydration technologies to ensure that their products retain their maximum level of potency. Organic India's goal is to offer the highest quality products available today.
At the heart of Organic India is their commitment to be a living embodiment of consciousness in action. Organic India works with thousands of family farmers in India who cultivate thousands of acres of organic farmland. Organic India actively promotes sustainable agriculture and pays a premium market rate to their farmers. All Organic India products promote wellness and are certified organic. Each product you hold in your hands is one link in a chain of love, respect and connectedness between Organic India's farmers and you. By choosing Organic India you are completing this chain, which gives training and a living wage to the Indian farmers, creates a sustainable environment and brings happiness and well being to you.
Organic India's StoryOrganic India was formed in the 1990's by a small group of people from different parts of the world who met in Lucknow, a town in northern India, where they had traveled to meet a teacher named Sri H.W.L. Poonja, or Papaji as he was called by many. Drawn to India in search of truth and self-realization, they found their way to Lucknow upon hearing of the simple teachings of Papaji: "Keep Quiet. The eternal truth exists within you. Do not entertain a single thought and the truth will reveal itself to itself."
Inspired by Papaji's lifetime of service to the Indian people, this group of visionaries (and future founders of Organic India) came together to create a holistic business that would eventually change the face of agriculture in northern India. Their idea was simple: establish a business model that will support the livelihood of thousands of impoverished farmers in India by providing training and education that will enable them to be self-sufficient and to develop skills that will be passed on to their children and future generations.
This idea became a movement as the Indian people began to cultivate and develop organic, biodynamic and sustainable farming methods. The founder's mission to offer safe, healthful products to the world is the driving force behind an organic revolution that is now occurring there.
Organic India works with thousands of family farmers in India, cultivating tens of thousands of acres of farmland that has been 3rd party certified organic through funding from Organic India. The farmers are commissioned to grow organic crops under their guidance, which Organic India then purchases from them at a premium market price. Organic India also works with local tribes-people in India who ethically wildcraft herbs on 592,000 acres of forest that Organic India has converted to USDA certified organic.
Currently, Organic India markets certified organic, biodynamic, and ethically wildcrafted products throughout India, the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Japan and Australia.
Organic India's VisionTo be a vehicle of consciousness in the global market by creating a holistic sustainable business modality, which inspires, promotes and supports well-being and respect for all beings and for Mother Nature.Organic India's MissionTo be a trustworthy and innovative global leader in providing genuine organic products and solutions for conscious, healthy living.Organic India's Commitment:
Organic India's Values:
Organic India means absolute commitment to quality. All Organic India products are 100% organic, pure and natural, because you want the best for your family and so do they. The guiding principles of their company are health and happiness for all beings and great respect for the Divine Mystery of Mother Nature who selflessly sustains humanity and naturally provides us all with a bounty of nourishing foods and healing herbs.
Organic FarmingAs part of their mission to create a sustainable global environment, Organic India uses the following farming practices.
What is organic farming?Organic farming is the practice of growing crops without the use of chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. It relies mainly on crop rotation, organic fertilizers and plant-based pesticides and herbicides to maintain soil productivity and tilth.
Why is organic farming important?There is more and more evidence that chemical-based fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are extremely harmful to our health. However, the strongest argument in favor of organic farming remains the environmental benefit. In a world facing a global climate crisis, it has become imperative that we do as much as possible to reduce the negative effects of global warming. Harmful emissions are released into our atmosphere during the manufacturing of these chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides that have been linked to global warming. Conventional agriculture relies heavily on these chemicals which further harm our eco-system when they enter our soil and seep into water supplies.
About Biodynamic Agriculture
What is Biodynamic agriculture?Biodynamic agriculture is a step beyond organic. It is a holistic program that utilizes crop rotation, a planting calendar using the cycles of the moon, the sun and the seasons to determine the best time to plant each crop, and specially prepared homeopathic compounds which are added to water and soil to increase the vitality of the land, the water and the crops themselves.
Why is Biodynamic agriculture important?Using Biodynamic agriculture restores balance and increases the health of the eco systems where the method is used. While it also prohibits the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, it adds elements which help to heal damage to the eco-system which has been caused by any prior use of these toxic substances.
About Ethical Wildcrafting
What is ethical wildcrafting?Ethical wildcrafting is the practice of harvesting plants from the wild in a sustainable manner, without depleting the population or damaging the habitat of the plants that are being harvested.
Why is ethical wildcrafting important?The population of many plants that grow in the wild is declining due to over-harvesting and loss of habitat. It is important to harvest plants in a way that ensures that they will continue to grow back each year, thus maintaining the delicate balance of their eco-system and ensuring the continued supply of these natural resources.
What is sustainable agriculture?Farming that provides a secure living for farm families, maintains the natural environment and resources, supports the rural community and offers respect and fair treatment to all involved.
Other Ingredients: Organic Evaporated Cane Juice, Organic Honey, Organic Clarified Butter (Ghee), Organic Sesame Oil.
100% Organic Ingredients.
Each serving contains: Amla fruit, Grape fruit, Cardamom seed, Long Pepper fruit, Cassia leaves, Cinnamon bark, Haritaki fruit, Guruchi stem, Adenophora root, Sandalwood, Beech Bush bark, Bel bark, Bittersweet whole, Black Gram whole, Cyperus root, Devils Claw fruit, Indian Kudzsu root, Kempfreria Galanga rhizome, Mung Bean whole, Oroxylum bark, Padri root, Premna bark, Purnarnava whole, Sarivan whole, Shatavari root, Tribulus whole, Waterlily flower, Yellow Fruit Nightshade whole, Ashwagandha root, Bamboo, Curculigo root, Laptedenia root, Mesua stamen, Phyllanthus whole.
We've added your item to the Wish List. You can view your list any time from your MyLucky account page. A Wish List is useful to keep track of items you are interested in buying in the future. Once you purchase the items, they come off your list.
Sorry, we were unable to add your item at this time.
Your Wish List request is currently being processed.
Item Code: 34567
We've added your item to the Regimen. You can view your list any time from your MyLucky account page. A Regimen is useful to keep track of items you you purchase frequently (or take as part of a "regimen"). Unlike a Wish List, items you add to your Regimen are not removed from the list after you purchase them.
Your Regimen request is currently being processed.
Item Code:


text:
Full size version is only available to registered users
Please Register as a New User or Login as Existing User to gain full access to all the photos on this site. Registration is quick and completely free.
Unregistered users can only view full size photos that have been added this month.
Welcome sunshine on the Silk Route.
© richard kirby, May 2000
Route: The Silk Route, E3 5c, 5b
Climbers: Rich Kirby
Camera used: Ixus 500


text:
When you leave Oxford, any IT Services-managed accounts and services that you had been using will be deactivated. This document tells you what you need to do about them.
For the purposes of this web page, College includes Permanent Private Hall, and Department includes Faculty or Sub-Faculty.
For renewal of student club accounts, please see http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/registration/clubs/ .
1. Card Expiry Date
- your card has been cancelled by your college or department (for example if you resign, or discontinue your course)
- your card shows Congregation status but you are no longer on the Register of Congregation (this can happen if you change department or college)
- your card has been renewed with a non-qualifying status (for example Bodleian reader)
Students who have completed their course retain access to some services for a limited time. See below for details.
2. Termination of Services
2.1. Single Sign-On (SSO)
For all users except Undergraduates, Visiting Students and Graduates, any SSO accounts will be disabled at university card expiry. This means that access to all Webauth-protected resources will stop working.
For Undergraduates, Visiting Students and Graduates on taught courses, SSO account expiry is extended to 6 months after card expiry. For Graduates on research courses, this is further extended to 10 months after card expiry. This allows student leavers time to book their graduation ceremony in SITS/eVision, and to access Student Self Service and Graduate Supervision System (GSS). OxCORT is not available to undergraduate leavers; if access is required they should contact their College academic administrator.
SSO accounts are fully active during this extension period (although access to services other than those listed above may not be available). In order for IT Services to be able to assist if a rescue code is needed, please ensure that an alternative email address has been reqistered before card expiry.
2.1.1. College or Departmental facilities
Where access to local services is controlled by your Oxford Single Sign-On account, this will usually terminate when your card expires. Please check with the provider of the local service if you have any queries - IT Services does not hold any information about them.
2.2. Nexus
Accesssing your Nexus mailbox WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE once your card has expired. If you set up email forwarding before your card expires, your email will be delivered to your forwarding address for two months after card expiry. Please note that existing messages in your mailbox will not be forwarded.
- Email will continue to be delivered to your account unless you have taken action (see below) or until your quota is reached, but you will not be able to read these messages unless you have set up forwarding.
- If forwarding has been set up, it will continue to function.
- If an Out of Office message has been set up, it will continue to function (but it can't be updated; however, student leavers are able to set or change mail forwarding via self-registration within two months of card expiry).
- If neither a forwarding or an out-of-office message has been set up at card expiry, Nexus will set an Out-of-Office message saying This account is scheduled for deletion. It is unlikely that your message will be read. If you return, this message will be automatically removed.
Once your mailbox has been deleted, no email forwarding will occur and no Out of Office messages will be sent. Email sent to your mailbox will be returned to the sender as undeliverable. Once deleted, your mailbox data are kept on tape for a short time.
2.3. Remote Access (VPN/Eduroam)
Remote Access accounts are deleted promptly after the card expiry date. If you subsequently become eligible for an account again, you can re-register for one.
2.4. Web space
http://users.ox.ac.uk/ will be unavailable once your card expires,
and will be deleted two months after card expiry. During this period:
- Anyone visiting your pages will see the response The requested URL was not found on this server.
- You will not be able to update your web pages.
- Your web pages will become accessible again if the account is renewed within two months and you re-request web access
2.5. Linux account
Any Linux account will be deleted two months after card expiry. During this period:
- You will not be able to log in for interactive computing or access to your files, so any material of value should be copied elsewhere before your card expiry date.
- You will not be able to access your files through other means such as scp.
- Your files will become accessible again if the account is renewed within two months and you re-request linux access
3. Email management
You can arrange diversion of your University email address to a new service for an overlap period. Your full range of options is given below.
3.1. No action
If you take no action, email will continue to be delivered to your Nexus mailbox. Senders may receive a message saying that the mailbox is about to be deleted, but you will not be aware of, or be able to read, new messages in your inbox.
3.2. No new address
If you have no replacement email service available, you can set an automatic Out of Office message to advise email senders that you cannot receive their messages. This could include details of alternative ways to contact you.
To set up an automatic reply, use the Automatic Replies functionality in Outlook Web App. You will not be able to update your messages or date range after your card expiry date.
3.3. Kill your email
If your email is routed to a Nexus account and you wish to disable your email addresses promptly, please save any material you want to retain, then email email@example.com to request immediate blocking of your account. Once this is done, any email to your University addresses will fail and the sender will know that you have not received it.
3.4. Non-IT Services email
3.5. Forwarding Nexus email to a new address
You are strongly advised to arrange a new external email facility well before your University Card expires (to allow time for sorting out any problems). Email forwarding from Nexus continues for two months after your University Card expires, unless other arrangements have been made.
Note that forwarding only re-routes new incoming messages to your new address. Messages you have already received will not be processed (see 4.1. Saving email).
To set forwarding on a Nexus mailbox, follow the instructions in the Nexus mailbox settings section of the self-registration page, and enter your new email address. It is also possible to set forwading by creating a rule in Outlook or OWA.
It is possible to combine the setting of a forwarding address with an Out of Office
automatic reply to notify correspondents automatically that a new address should be
used to contact you. In this case make sure that you specify yes to the
[Save local
copy] option otherwise the automatic reply will not be triggered.
4. Material stored in your IT Services accounts
It is your responsibility to secure any material before your card expires and accounts are disabled.
You may wish to preserve email messages or other files stored in your Oxford University accounts. Possible alternative methods are listed below. This needs to be done before your card expiry date.
If you have your own personal computer, files can be saved direct to your hard disk. Otherwise, you can copy to external media. The size limit per disk is approximately 650Mb for CD and 4.5Gb for DVD. Alternatively, a USB memory stick or hard disk can be used.
In the case of CD or DVD on Windows, you will need to complete the copying process using the Write these files task when you have dealt with all the relevant files. Before relying on the saved copy, you should check the disk by opening it via My Computer.
For help on use of the basic file copying facilities in this section, please contact your local IT support staff, or the IT Services Help Centre if local staff are not available.
4.1. Saving email
4.1.1. Using an Email client on your own computer
Use an IMAP email client (e.g. Thunderbird or Mac Mail) to transfer or copy folders from Nexus to local folders on your client system. If you are setting up a client for the first time, configuration information is available at http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/nexus/email/clients.xml. Check that the folders are still accessible when your computer is not connected to the network.
Note that in Microsoft Outlook, local folders are created under the 'Personal Folders' heading of your folder list.
The local folders will only be accessible using the same email client program, but you could also use it to load them back to a new IMAP server elsewhere so that they can be accessed by any client.
This method is also applicable to non-IT Services systems which use IMAP.
4.2. Web space
There are three possible ways of copying your web pages:
- For a small simple site, browse your web pages and save copies of pages and images using your browser's Save As facility.
- Use a standard secure FTP client to transfer folders from the server to your client system. Windows-oriented programs such as WS_FTP will usually allow you to transfer the entire site in a single operation. For maximum portability, HTML files should be copied as ASCII, and images (.jpg, .gif, etc) as binary.
- Web space is accessible from your Linux account and can be copied using the methods recommended for Linux files.
5. External references and ongoing projects
If you have registered your
firstname.lastname@example.com email address
or your
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~username web URL with an external
agency, or you have them advertised in some permanent way, these references must be
changed and you must arrange this before your accounts expire.
If others will be continuing your work, please ensure that web pages and other files are transferred to an appropriate colleague or member of staff before you leave. IT Services regards your files as private property and it causes inconvenience to your successors if you have not made proper arrangements in advance. If there is a non-personal account, you or your IT Officer can transfer the ownership without special formality by contacting IT Services Registration, otherwise the account will be deleted as normal when you leave.
If you have an alumni email address and you have routed it to your Nexus account (or a college or departmental account) then you will need to re-route it to an external service before your University account is terminated. You need to do this yourself using the alumni email web pages.
6. Alumni Email
The Alumni Email Forwarding Service is for Oxford University Alumni. It is not available to staff or visitors. It provides an Oxford-based email address for life, which, so long as you keep your record up to date, will forward email to your chosen email account. It is free and it includes anti-virus checking and spam scoring, but you will need to set up your own e-mail account with a service provider of your choice so that the Oxford e-mail forwarding service can send your mail there. If you are already registered, and temporarily forwarding your alumni address to your Nexus account, you must get a new account and update your forwarding before the University account expires.
All alumni are now entitled to use the service, but an alumni card is needed before you can register. Leavers should receive a card during Trinity Term, together with information from the Alumni Office. If you have not received an Alumni Card, please complete the online form
The email addresses will be in the form:
(i.e. <firstname>.<lastname> @
<college>.oxon.org). For members of the service, all names, colleges, and
years of matriculation will be searchable but there will be an ex-directory option for
those who wish to remain private.
More information is available via the Alumni Office website. This includes a helpline email address. Please do not contact IT Services regarding the alumni email forwarding service.
Graduates in Business Studies should consult their own alumni association.
7. Other items to note
7.1. College or Departmental services
Please enquire locally regarding local email or network services - IT Services will not be able to help with these queries.
If you have your desktop or any other computers registered for TSM backup, or you are the contact for error messages on any TSM node, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.com if your backups are no longer required. If the files will continue to be used after you leave, please email us or ask your IT officer to contact us when the new owner has been arranged.
The terms of the TSM client licence require you to uninstall any TSM client software from your PC(s) when you leave Oxford.