Hi Miriam,
So, you've found he out. Houdini Jarvis.
But seriously, when I find a definition that fits, I'll wear it eagerly.
Trouble is, I used to declare myself to be a Patriotic American. That definition turned out to be nothing but fiction and deliberate lies by the Ruling Class to keep my People in submission.
Then I was a Born Again Christian. Despite all that my father had preached to me, I embraced God Almighty, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. That defined me. Until finally the fog and Bull Shit was washed from my eyes and I realized that Christianity, that All religions are merely another tool in the Master's tool box, just like Patriotism, put there to keep my People imprisoned.
And so,
God, along with all religion, has been invented by Men for purposes of keeping their slaves in their place and giving them the Right to rule.
But I can't define whatever it is that began this Universe, if indeed it ever had a beginning.
I am no longer a Patriotic American. I say that I am a Citizen of Planet Earth. But I will not hold to that if something better comes along.
I turned away from the National Federation of the Blind because Jernigan was playing God over his blind subjects. I tried to work within the organization but was thrown out for my trouble. Over the years I have defined myself as a Democrat, working hard within the Party as I had worked within the NFB, to about the same end. I have been a Liberal, a Progressive and a Radical. All words.
At my heart I am simply a Free Spirit. I can change my mind when new information comes along. I do not have to apologize for that which I once believed to be the Truth. While I lean toward Marx, and could well be at least a Socialist, I find that I don't really fit there, either.
When I directed the Training Center, VRC's would bring a fat folder and place it in my hands saying that they wanted to refer this client to the Center. "Better read that file. You'll want to know some of the problems we're dealing with here", they would say.
I would thank them and set a date for their client to enter our Program. Then I'd lay the file to one side. After their initial two week evaluation, where we would meet and get acquainted, I would then sit down and read the file. It was usually pompous crap. Words put down to show the importance of the VRC. Not always. We did have some human beings working within the Department, but many of our so called professionals were simply inflated hot air balloons. If I'd read their opinions first, I would have been prejudiced against the client. I would always be seeing that person through the fat folder.
Just as we blind people are always seen through that Universal Blind Stereotype.
Call me what you will, it cannot change the fact that I know who I am. And I will never again be bound by the rules and pontifications of others. I will listen, I will learn, as I have learned from you and Roger, and Sylvie, and Alice, and Bob, and Joe, and so many others. I will alter my thinking, but it will always be mine to do.
If to you that makes me an escape artist, so be it.
Carl Houdini Jarvis, The Great!!!
----- Original Message -----From: Miriam VieniSent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:52 PMSubject: RE: THE FIVE PERCENT GODCarl, the man who doesn't want to be pinned down or defined, the escape
artist.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:39 PM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: THE FIVE PERCENT GOD
Alice and Miriam,
For sure I don't find any tangible support for the various forms of God as
described in the many Holy Books. Each is filled with hope and desire. But
there is no solid facts proving that one of these many Gods really exists.
On the other hand, I have experienced some interesting phenomena. Nothing
within my experience explains them. I am sure that there is an explanation,
but it is currently out of my reach. I also believe that our senses only
provide us with a small window into all that is going on about us in this
thing we call The Universe.
Also, I am a Dreamer, with a capital D. I love wandering off into the "What
if" world.
What if there really are Flying Saucers? What if people have found a way to
travel through Time? What if there is a faster method of moving through
space than at the speed of light? What if Mary had a little Lamb? Would
that mean the the Ram is as horny as the shepherd?
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: Miriam Vieni <mailto:miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
<mailto:blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:47 PM
Subject: RE: THE FIVE PERCENT GOD
Alice,
I wasn't talking about agnostics as a group, just about Carl. From
what he
said, it sounded like he was quite sure that there is no God, but he
just
didn't want to say that. I realize that not everyone is in that
place.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Alice
Dampman
Humel
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:20 AM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: THE FIVE PERCENT GOD
Miriam,
I don't think that is the case.it's not that an agnostic does not
have the
"courage of his convictions, " it is that his "conviction" is that
it is
unknowable and impossible to prove whether God exists or not. That
is the
primary component of agnosticism as I see it.
Alice
On Mar 27, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
If you're right, you're an atheist, but you don't have the courage
of your
convictions, just like most other people who call themselves
agnostics.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:30 AM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: THE FIVE PERCENT GOD
Roger, please never leave this list. I am absolutely enchanted by
your
explanations. On the one hand, you cause me to think, an exercise
we should
all be doing daily, and on the other hand, as you march step by step
through
your logical explanations, I find myself grinning from ear to ear.
You are about the most methodical thinker I've met in a long time.
Nonetheless, I am going to continue to call myself an Agnostic. At
least
until I stumble upon a better word. I place no percentages on
whether God
exists in any form, or not. I simply see no way of proving that
which
cannot be measured.
As I've said before, I believe that God had to be invented to answer
unanswerable questions that troubled Man.
If I'm right, then there is no room for a 5% or 50% possibility of
some sort
of God.
Of course Believers everywhere will tell me that I'm wrong, that God
does
exist, and that He created Man. They are 100% positive that they
are right.
But they have 0% proof.
They would be better off trying to prove that the Easter Bunny
exists. At
least they can show the numbers of colored eggs that mysteriously
appear
hidden on Easter Day. Some might argue that the eggs were placed
there by
Mom and Dad, while others would say that a Rabbit came around during
the
night. The young child can't prove either claim. All they can see
are the
eggs tucked in open hiding. And a big basket of tooth decay sitting
at the
end of their beds.
When the children grow wiser, they figure out just what is going on.
But our Universe is so vast and time is so eternal that we may never
become
wise enough to figure it all out. So until then, I say we can't
prove the
unprovable.
Carl Jarvis(the Agnostic)
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <mailto:rogerbailey81@aol.com>
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
<mailto:blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:50 AM
Subject: THE FIVE PERCENT GOD
I am just getting on my computer for the first time today and I have
not
yet checked my email. Since I have an off line life it will be some
time
before I do check it too, but I have been thinking about Bob's post
about estimating a five percent probability of a god and I feel
compelled to add to my response to him. First, Let's look at how an
estimate of five percent probability is established. To
estimate a
five percent probability it is necessary to run at least twenty
trials.
Since we are talking about looking for an event that would be the
existence of a creator of the universe then each trial would consist
of
examining a universe and either detecting a god or not detecting
one. If
you looked at twenty universes and found nineteen of them without a
god
and one with a god then you could estimate that the probability of
finding a god for the next one was five percent. Twenty is the
minimum
though. If you examined a hundred universes and found five gods or
if
you examined a thousand universes and found fifty gods then your
estimate of five percent would be a more and more accurate estimate
and
your degree of confidence in that estimate would increase. In order
to
speak of a probability, though, you must have not examined the
universe
that you are estimating a five percent probability of a god for. I
suppose that is this universe. So why do you not examine this
universe
using the same techniques that you used for the other minimum of
twenty
universes and then you could establish a certainty of either a god
or no
god for this universe? Then, have you examined any universes at all?
The
traditional definition of the word universe is everything. That
would
leave you with only one universe to examine at all. It means that
you
only get one trial and you either find one or you don't find one and
so
you either establish a one hundred percent probability or you
establish
a zero probability if your method is unambiguous. If you do not have
an
unambiguous method for detecting a god and you find no evidence of a
god
then you are back at a probability of one in infinity and that
amounts
to zero. Now, there are some cutting edge physicists who propose the
existence of parallel universes. They are really only revising the
definition of the word universe. They posit the existence of
something
that they call the multiverse that contains all of the universes. In
the
way they use those words they are only calling everything the
multiverse
and the word universe is demoted to something less than everything.
This
still remains only a proposal though. It is based on the behavior of
certain subatomic particles and a mathematical model. They have not
actually detected or examined another universe. Have you found a way
to
examine the other universes in the multiverse? If you have I would
be
interested in learning about your technique and you will be looking
at a
Nobel prize. Then, if you have found a way to examine the various
universes in the multiverse, what technique do you use to detect a
god
for these universes? That would be worthy of a nobel prize too. If,
on
the other hand, you have examined only the universe in which you
reside
then what technique do you use to establish a that five percent
probability and why does it not establish the existence of a god one
way
or another? Is it that it is unreliable and you must run a trial on
the
same universe many times? Does it show the existence of a god only
one
time out of twenty times you use it. I suppose that there are many
unreliable techniques around that might produce results like that in
a
number of fields, but it would be very useful to look closely at the
technique and see if there is a way to refine it to make it more
reliable. The real question is, how do you determine that five
percent
probability of a god? I will tell you what I suspect and if I am
wrong
then I would be very interested in knowing what your method really
is
and that could also be a basis for a nobel prize. I suspect that you
are
just pulling the five percent figure out of thin air. If that is the
case then the figure has no more meaning than the implied
probability of
fifty percent that most agnostics advocate with actually giving
figures.
If that is the case also, then I would expect that you will try to
justify your figure with arguments like, I just feel it or I just
think
it or it just seems that way to me. In other words, you would be
using
the very same arguments that the proponents of a hundred percent
probability use and it would be just as valid, that is, not valid at
all. Unless you can produce a god detector or at least some way that
a
god detector would work, that is, a falsifiable theory of god that
can
be tested, you are right back to making an assertion with no
supporting
evidence and it will be only one of the set of assertions that have
no
support and that set numbers a total of infinity. That is, the
assertion
of a five percent probability of the existence of a god would have
exactly the probability of being true as the assertion that there is
a
hundred percent probability of a god, one in infinity.
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
No comments:
Post a Comment