At Oklahoma Christian University this summer, all faculty and all new students attending New Student Orientations will be issued new Apple MacBooks. Current students also will be given the opportunity to trade in their Windows PC laptop for an Apple MacBook. This MacBook mobile learning initiative and the reliable campus-wide wireless infrastructure will allow OC to continue to provide opportunities for anytime, anywhere access to media-rich distributed course content.
In addition to the Apple MacBooks, the University will offer students an option of either an Apple iPhone or iPod touch. The University is providing this option with the understanding that some students will not want to activate the iPhone with the associated service contract and costs, while others will prefer the iPhone and the added capabilities. The student will be responsible for the activation of the iPhone with the service provider.
More info here.
MacDailyNews Take: Oklahoma Christian University gives students opportunity, indeed.
Ok, I will concede that the “Time is an illusion” debate has obviously not been settled. But I would say that this debate is starting to seem a lot like the evolution debate. It’s only not settled for anyone who is willing to ignore ALL inductive evidence.
That said this is very different from theological or philosophical debates. Those can’t have inductive conclusions. They are deductive by nature.
Dallas, your explanation goes a long way to not satisfying me. I believe the carbon atom example was not the best to choose. I would postulate that within the First Existence (or design, since we are in that direction) of an atom would be the reason why such an atom would decay. And a First Design is what all this is about. In addition, although we cannot assume a First Mover if we accept the Quantum Physics description of Probability, I am still left with the belief that it does not negate such a First Mover. When other indicators are added, the logic of a First Mover/First Cause remains. And, in the logic of the Big Bang banging without outside influence, as I believe you suggest is inherent in Q.Physics theory, one must still assume the existence without beginning of the matter making up what was needed for the Big Bang. And, once again, it makes more sense to assume the existence of an intelligence, God, then of inanimate matter which just happened to always exist.
If God did not create Time, but is equally bound to it, then the question remains as to where did Time came from. In traditional definitions of God, God is considered outside Time. Only from that perspective does all else seem to flow correctly. And I would certainly agree that there is a point when we must enter the philosophical or theological realm in order to complete the picture. We either stay within the restrictions of science, which continues to unfold and sometimes has to adjust its own theories, or we move beyond on our own since we may not be around long enough otherwise.
Dallas, one more thing. I am not sure your statement that Time is the same for everything negates anything Edge Over said. Indeed, and this is within the philosophical realm, we only perceive how other objects or animals or people move through Time from our own perspective. From a measured perspective, what you say is true. Even from Einstein’s description, which you yourself raised, Time may be experience differently by different entities depending, to take only one example, on the speed which each entity moves through the universe. One moving significantly faster will experience Time and its effects differently from one moving slower. Taken that way, Time is not only perception, but a measurable difference in reality… if we’re to consider Einstein’s work in this area which, did I mention, you did correctly bring up.
Dallas, I do believe that philosophical and theological perspectives on universe phenomena are certainly legitimate, likely as much as scientific inquiry in some cases. I see that you acknowledge that. Such perspectives often bring up the questions later addressed in science. I believe they often are best in taken together with scientific inquiry. Each can bring up questions that can sometimes be answered, or partially answered, by the other. The more inquiries and answers from each, the more a total answer appears to bring a most logical assessment that God exists, which is where all this started.
There is only Now. Not a future and not a past. Time is a concept.
The vast sequence of events only happen now – not in the past and not in the future.
We understand the probability of future things happening in concept, because we have a memory of things that have happened but are not happening now. The events of any future are based on probabilities. Yet nothing will really happen in the future it will happen now.
Because of our understanding of probabilities we build rudimentary clocks by which we count through our relative sequence of events as they happen. But it all is still only happening Now – forever.
Seems I’ve gotten a little ahead of responses. Didn’t mean to. I did want to add that, unlike others, I do not believe that Big Bank theory negates the existence of God in any way. Like many mainline churches, I believe God could have created the universe in any way he wanted, including a Big Bang design. I say that only for clarity. I would think your take on that would be the same.
I’ll be getting on with life now.
Edge Over, I am delaying getting on with life to respond that, although I love the description of your understanding of Time, and of the Now, I do believe that it is possible that Time may be more than simply Concept. Can’t say for sure, of course. Time Concept, I might suggest, could have a concrete physical foundation. On this, I would edge over to Dallas’s position. I believe carrying your thinking a little further may add an additional dimension to it. And I still don’t think there is an insurmountable chasm between both positions.
Cleanup Pierre- you are a true diplomat.
It’s all interesting to postulate at any rate. Just don’t waste to much “time” on it.
Though I’m not extremely knowledgeable in Quantum Physics the amount I’ve learned is competely fascinating. Attributes of absolute zero (or close to it) and effects are amazing. I want to know more about it.
cheers to you and dallas
Well, back to Mac related things.
Remember – Now is forever.
Sorry guys, just two more points and then I’ll leave it alone.
(i) I forget who said it but someone has previously stated that time, quantum physics and the state of the universe can only be satisfied by one concept and that is God. This statement is true only insofar as God falls within the limits of the human psyche. It is entirely possible that all the aforementioned are caused by something other than a higher deity. It’s just that our limited human thinking cannot possibly conceptualise it. Saying that it can only be down to God and nothing else shows a severe constraint in thinking.
(ii) To those who believe that there must be design behind organisation and that organisation such as evolution cannot come from randomness think on this: next time you’re walking along a pebble beach, take a look around you. You’ll notice that there is a clear division between the large pebbles and the small pebbles on the shore. It looks as if they’ve been thoughtfully separated and ordered into bands along the shore and yet this pattern was produced by a chaotic sea and pebbles that have no preference as to how they are scattered. What you are looking at is order from chaos. It can happen and it doesn’t need a thinking entity to produce it.
So, Pierre, you wish to add to your earlier thinking. I have time for a response:
(1) You are welcome to offer an alternative to God in explanation of what has been discussed. But you must offer the alternative. You cannot simply say, as so many do, that you do not know what it is, but it does not have to be a god. Saying it may be “something other” than God says nothing. God fully explains all that has gone before here. “Something other” simply says you have no clue what an alternative explanation might be, but you wish to avoid suggesting it can be God at all costs. That “argument” has been made repeatedly and, absent some more concrete alternative, it is a non-starter.
(2) Separation of pebbles on the shore are in fact easily explainable as I suspect a few moments of thought from you would ascertain. I see you wish to address the evolution issue here. However, if you review the previous comments, you will not see that as a discussion item at all. My take on it specifically indicated that it is a subject on which I take no position here. However, based on another statement of mine regarding the Big Bang, I can extend my thought to evolution. That thought, repeated from an earlier post, indicates that God can choose to create the universe in any manner he would like. That would include the use of evolution as well as alternatives. Evolution is most notably condemned by many Christian churches which trace themselves back to Martin Luther when he tacked his 95 theses to a church door in Wittenberg, Germany. However, the majority of more traditional Christian churches, both Protestant and Catholic, do not have an aversion to accepting evolution as acceptable in the creation of the universe. Although many seem to want to dictate how God did it, God can choose to create in any way he wants. He is God, after all. So, your argument vis-a-vis evolution is a non-issue here. Keep in mind that most (not all) discussion here focuses on the very beginnings, not the further developments that eventually include a discussion of evolution or lack thereof. As you failed to do early on, you again fail to address that basic question. How did the universe first begin… what must have been there at the beginning… something cannot come from nothing… something had to have always existed. What was it? The most logical response to answer what otherwise would seem untenable would indicate God. That answer alone addresses all First Things. That is, the VERY First Things, before the theoretical Big Bang or any other universe-creating methodology even begins. Saying, “I don’t know what it is, but it’s not God” puts you in a position of permanently denying something that is clearly to many of us the only explanation. Your denial does not appear to be based on any sensible alternative. Re-read all of our posts. If there is some other concrete explanation, advance it. Otherwise, perhaps you should accept that the only explanation may be the existence of God. And, barring any other future explanation you come across with some logic behind it, I would recommend accepting that answer while you wait.
Clarification: I did not intend to indicate that the evolution controversy traces itself back to the Protestant Reformation since clearly the concept of evolution was not present in its current form until hundreds of years later.
I did, however, mean to indicate a common traceable history of most current Christian churches which hold “religiously” to God selecting only that single way for creation of the universe. Again, I take no stand on it myself as I am not in the business of second guessing God. I’ll let him do whatever he wants in whichever manner he wants without telling him how he’s supposed to do it. Those using the Christian Bible to support their position by taking what is said absolutely literally misunderstand the contexts of that text and are not listening to those who assembled it in the first place. I believe, Pierre, it may be those whom you insist on addressing. Their lack of historical fundamentals in understanding that source has created some confusion among them and others. But it has no bearing at all on whether God exists. And that is what this entire conversation would appear to be about.
@Zune Tang
Regarding your statement:
“How the hell are these kids going to be prepared for the REAL WORLD? Just the other day I made a few “Remember to Flush” signs for the stalls in the men’s bathroom”
Looks like your co-workers on the 2nd floor, using PCs aren’t ready for the REAL WORLD if they can’t even remember to flush without a PC made sign. You really are creative, you made a sign on your PC!!
Zune Tang, maybe you didn’t hear about this thing called keynote and how much better it is than microsoft office… you should look into it….
oh btw, how is your zune market share going? or windows mobile? or MS stocks?
@ZuneTang: Did you put a picture of a Brown Zune on your flush signs?
Good move on the University’s part. Real potential and compassion.