Despite the malware, the entire world is better off for Windows on the PC being open to everyone. It has brought the age of computing to the masses as there's no centralized software control. If Apple truly wanted to do the right thing, they must open their platform.
My point is talking about the practice not the company. Why doesn't Apple do the right thing and allow everyone to install whatever they want on their devices?
Remember that only an investigation can reveal whether something is anti competitive or not. It depends on the market share and the amount of abuse. Remember that when Apple refused to approve the Google voice app, it was pressure from the FCC that finally got them to approve it. After all, it's "their store" right? They can refuse any app they want.
Apparently not. Just because Apple is following the letter of the law doesn't mean that they can't be held to be anti competitive in the future.
I've just shown you how a shirt that can affect the physical world is different from a thought experiment like the Zokooloo. Please refer to the previous points.
"You've applied a fallacious mechanism by assuming that a deity can only exist if we need it to explain some observable phenomena."
Refer to Occam's razor. If not, you're assuming that a Zokooloo can exist even though there's no observable phenomena to indicate it. God == Zokooloo.
As for the other counterarguments, I'm afraid I have to repeat what I said earlier - if you have a point to make, make it here. You won't see me asking you to go read a book and then respond to every statement made there. Take the trouble to make your point here and I will do the same. Otherwise you're just being lazy. Sorry, you don't get off that easily.
Neither of which changes the fact that one approach is good and the other is bad. I think I can safely say that the world as a whole is better of because Windows programs could be run by anyone and installed from any source.
1. You cannot compare a shirt which is a physical object and one for which you can have memories to a deity. So while Occam's razor correctly predicts there's no god, it does not do the same for a shirt.
2. In the math example, there is no precept that unknown values default to zero. Zero is no more nor no less special than any other real number.
3. As far as climate change is concerned, I'm pretty sure the evidence is quite voluminous and falls well into the category of "extraordinary"
Also recall that I debunked your other incorrect usages of Occam's razor like your extrasolar planets example. I hope this aspect of the debate has ended at least now.
Now that I've shown you how your usage of Occam's razor was incorrect (amongst other things), you still haven't told me how god is different from a Zokooloo.
By the way, your "counterargument" section in the teapot wiki is looking very thin. I've been reading the dissertation by Brian Garvey and his logic is very far from sound. Specifically he says this:
"Unless the existence of God is taken to be also manifestly far-fetched, the argument to the effect that if we don’t suspend judgement regarding the teapot then we shouldn’t suspend it regarding God, doesn’t get off the ground."
Except that the existence of god IS manifestly far fetched since the existence of god would require a hell of a lot of extra explaining for no good reason when we have a perfectly good working theory of the physical world as it stands right now.
"So there is, in your mind, a category of proof for things to exist even when there is no physical proof for it."
Ah, but you conveniently forget that your memory of your shirt is a physical one. On the contrary, no one "remembers" god. Little things like that matter. Frustrating no? Take a few science lessons in how to utilize Occam's razor properly:D
"Bad news I'm afraid. It seems the Zokooloo is gone:-(. Turns out it was only ever a strawman and it's master insisted on burning it. Being a logical fallacy it could never take part in a discussion intended to arrive at a logical conclusion."
And yet you've never substantiated your argument that the Zokooloo is a strawman. You've merely asserted it without backing up your statements. Lazy. Or you're trying to escape the issue. You have to show HOW it is a strawman. If only winning an argument could be done by labeling instead of cool logic, you would have wrapped this up several posts ago. Oh cruel reality!
Now to the teapot. A mere pointer to the "counterarguments" section is very lazy thinking. If you're going to let other people do the talking for you, you might as well leave this conversation and go read some books. Make your points here, or don't say anything at all. As for the exact arguments presented, they're lame. As if "Bigness and grandeur" have any kind of relevance whatsoever.
So now you either show why you think the Zokooloo is a strawman, or you answer the question about whether you are agnostic with regard to the Zokooloo. Careful - I'm closely watching to see how you can wriggle out of this one.
I didn't say anyone was forcing me to use Apple products. And I was talking about the PC market. Why should PCs and smartphones be any different? This is not about what's legal/illegal but about being jerks. Apple is being a jerk.
Also, once the phone is purchased, it belongs to the customer. Ethically Apple should have no right to dictate what apps are installed on to it.
The point is that target has a special exclusive relationship with those products. It's exclusive to them. In the case of the iPhone, the customer owns the device. They want to put something on it...where exactly does apple come in?
"they aren't forcing them to sign exclusivity agreements"
But the exclusivity is technologically enforced.
Ramen can sell it's noodles anywhere else. Not just target. But where can an iOS developer sell his/her iOS programs? Nowhere else.
Suppose that Microsoft had to approve every program that runs on Windows. Would you be happy about it?
In most of your cases, (like Target commissioning), they own the products. Third party developers and their software are not owned by Apple. Like McDonald's owns Big Mac. Apple does not "own" my iOS app. Chrome selling safari? That's like selling Android on the app marketplace. How can you even compare? Apps are not a competitor to Apple or iOS. At all.
It's an easy proof. There's no physical evidence for god. Therefore god HAS to lie in the mind alone - aka a thought experiment. Now coming back to that irritating Zokooloo which you continue to scrupulously avoid like the plague just because it's inconvenient to your argument. I'm eagerly waiting for either your answer or further prevarications on your part as you try and fudge the issue.
A: 2+2 = 5
B: 2+2 = 4
A: "Aha! So you concede that you were wrong!"
This is your argument in a nutshell where you are A and I am B. Nice try at browbeating though. It might work on the 3 year old you just referred to.
You asked a three year old if deities exist? And who got the "idea" of a deity into him/her in the first place? Were they born with it? No. By default no one believes in anything unless they're introduced to the idea in some way or the other.
I see you've conveniently sidestepped the Zokooloo argument as well. Tell me - are you a Zokooloo agnostic as well? Or do you categorically believe that Zokooloo's don't exist? Answer carefully for this question shall determine thy state of sanity.
It must be nice to lose an argument and then say "Exactly!". Like in the shirt example, I showed you that you used Occam's razor to reach a wrong conclusion.
Oh well, no wonder you're having difficulty understanding what I'm saying.
TV off is no information. This is the default state, and the originating state
Exactly! (See, THAT'S how it's used) And atheism is the default state. The originating state. Just like non belief in a Zokooloo is the default state. The originating state. Atheism is so basic, that there's no need to even consider the question since by DEFAULT you don't believe in something you can't see. Just like you don't "believe" in a Zokooloo. Where is your data point for your non belief in a Zokooloo?
Babies are not agnostics. They're atheists until their parents (like you) introduce the very idea of a god to them. Just like you will introduce your kid to the idea of the Zokooloo and then foolishly tell them that they COULD exist.
In fact the question of whether there is a need for something is orthagonal to it's existence.
This is where you clearly don't get Occam's razor. You always require a need to say that it exists. Your ignorant example of extrasolar planets dooms you. There is NEED for extra solar planets to exist because they demonstrate effects like creating wobbles in their stars and dimming them periodically. Therefore there is most CERTAINLY a need for them to exist. Again - Occam's razor.
God on the other hand. No NEED since there's no phenomena that NEEDS explaining.
And to recap: Stating doctrine as fact (God is a thought experiment) doesn't convince people who don't adhere to those doctrines.
Woah. You mean god is NOT a thought experiment? Pray please enlighten me what the hell god is then! To put it bluntly, the idea of god is a rectum derived idea that someone made up one day. Just like my Zokooloo. Unless you claim that god was NOT made up - in which case where is your evidence? Remember...that whole Occam's razor thing we were talking about?
But you never having a shirt doesn't explain your memories of it. Occam's razor says that you either didn't search everywhere or have lost it.
y=0 is the simplest explanation? Why?
Please don't demonstrate your ignorance of the basic principles of scientific practice.
Atheism is a belief in the same way that the TV being off is a separate channel. The default position is always atheism since everything around us is explained by natural phenomenon with no need for god. You're the one positing an extra useless force called "god" that serves no purpose whatsoever. That my friend, is an extraordinary claim.
No - the widely accepted practice is that of Occam's razor. All thing being equal, the simplest explanation that requires the fewest factors is the correct one. By this standard, there IS no god because god is an extraneous factor.
So - when you're positing an extra useless force, you have to give good reasons for it. Ergo the burden is on you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
When I think of PCs, Windows comes to mind first - OS X doesn't even enter the equation. So I talked about Windows and not OS X. What's eating you?
I lauded MS for their open approach on the PC model. I don't recall lauding them for any closed system.
Why should Apple make a distinction between the PC platforms and smartphones?
Despite the malware, the entire world is better off for Windows on the PC being open to everyone. It has brought the age of computing to the masses as there's no centralized software control. If Apple truly wanted to do the right thing, they must open their platform.
My point is talking about the practice not the company. Why doesn't Apple do the right thing and allow everyone to install whatever they want on their devices?
Remember that only an investigation can reveal whether something is anti competitive or not. It depends on the market share and the amount of abuse. Remember that when Apple refused to approve the Google voice app, it was pressure from the FCC that finally got them to approve it. After all, it's "their store" right? They can refuse any app they want.
Apparently not. Just because Apple is following the letter of the law doesn't mean that they can't be held to be anti competitive in the future.
Wow - the incompetence is strong in this one.
I've just shown you how a shirt that can affect the physical world is different from a thought experiment like the Zokooloo. Please refer to the previous points.
"You've applied a fallacious mechanism by assuming that a deity can only exist if we need it to explain some observable phenomena."
Refer to Occam's razor. If not, you're assuming that a Zokooloo can exist even though there's no observable phenomena to indicate it. God == Zokooloo.
As for the other counterarguments, I'm afraid I have to repeat what I said earlier - if you have a point to make, make it here. You won't see me asking you to go read a book and then respond to every statement made there. Take the trouble to make your point here and I will do the same. Otherwise you're just being lazy. Sorry, you don't get off that easily.
Neither of which changes the fact that one approach is good and the other is bad. I think I can safely say that the world as a whole is better of because Windows programs could be run by anyone and installed from any source.
But your analogies are false ones because:
1. You cannot compare a shirt which is a physical object and one for which you can have memories to a deity. So while Occam's razor correctly predicts there's no god, it does not do the same for a shirt.
2. In the math example, there is no precept that unknown values default to zero. Zero is no more nor no less special than any other real number.
3. As far as climate change is concerned, I'm pretty sure the evidence is quite voluminous and falls well into the category of "extraordinary"
Also recall that I debunked your other incorrect usages of Occam's razor like your extrasolar planets example. I hope this aspect of the debate has ended at least now.
Now that I've shown you how your usage of Occam's razor was incorrect (amongst other things), you still haven't told me how god is different from a Zokooloo.
By the way, your "counterargument" section in the teapot wiki is looking very thin. I've been reading the dissertation by Brian Garvey and his logic is very far from sound. Specifically he says this:
"Unless the existence of God is taken to be also manifestly far-fetched, the argument to the effect that if we don’t suspend judgement regarding the teapot then we shouldn’t suspend it regarding God, doesn’t get off the ground."
Except that the existence of god IS manifestly far fetched since the existence of god would require a hell of a lot of extra explaining for no good reason when we have a perfectly good working theory of the physical world as it stands right now.
Incidentally, how does the god delusion come into this? And what does it have to do with me?
"So there is, in your mind, a category of proof for things to exist even when there is no physical proof for it."
Ah, but you conveniently forget that your memory of your shirt is a physical one. On the contrary, no one "remembers" god. Little things like that matter. Frustrating no? Take a few science lessons in how to utilize Occam's razor properly :D
"Bad news I'm afraid. It seems the Zokooloo is gone :-(. Turns out it was only ever a strawman and it's master insisted on burning it. Being a logical fallacy it could never take part in a discussion intended to arrive at a logical conclusion."
And yet you've never substantiated your argument that the Zokooloo is a strawman. You've merely asserted it without backing up your statements. Lazy. Or you're trying to escape the issue. You have to show HOW it is a strawman. If only winning an argument could be done by labeling instead of cool logic, you would have wrapped this up several posts ago. Oh cruel reality!
Now to the teapot. A mere pointer to the "counterarguments" section is very lazy thinking. If you're going to let other people do the talking for you, you might as well leave this conversation and go read some books. Make your points here, or don't say anything at all. As for the exact arguments presented, they're lame. As if "Bigness and grandeur" have any kind of relevance whatsoever.
So now you either show why you think the Zokooloo is a strawman, or you answer the question about whether you are agnostic with regard to the Zokooloo. Careful - I'm closely watching to see how you can wriggle out of this one.
I didn't say anyone was forcing me to use Apple products. And I was talking about the PC market. Why should PCs and smartphones be any different? This is not about what's legal/illegal but about being jerks. Apple is being a jerk.
Also, once the phone is purchased, it belongs to the customer. Ethically Apple should have no right to dictate what apps are installed on to it.
And if Microsoft insisted on "approving" every software that ran on a PC you would be ok with this? If not, then it's double standards.
Also, for me this is less about legal/illegal and more about being an asshole.
The point is that target has a special exclusive relationship with those products. It's exclusive to them. In the case of the iPhone, the customer owns the device. They want to put something on it...where exactly does apple come in?
"they aren't forcing them to sign exclusivity agreements"
But the exclusivity is technologically enforced.
Ramen can sell it's noodles anywhere else. Not just target. But where can an iOS developer sell his/her iOS programs? Nowhere else.
Suppose that Microsoft had to approve every program that runs on Windows. Would you be happy about it?
In most of your cases, (like Target commissioning), they own the products. Third party developers and their software are not owned by Apple. Like McDonald's owns Big Mac. Apple does not "own" my iOS app. Chrome selling safari? That's like selling Android on the app marketplace. How can you even compare? Apps are not a competitor to Apple or iOS. At all.
Your attempt to defend Apple is just sad.
Probably because you can't buy that good from anywhere except that one store. That's pretty anti competitive.
It's an easy proof. There's no physical evidence for god. Therefore god HAS to lie in the mind alone - aka a thought experiment. Now coming back to that irritating Zokooloo which you continue to scrupulously avoid like the plague just because it's inconvenient to your argument. I'm eagerly waiting for either your answer or further prevarications on your part as you try and fudge the issue.
A: 2+2 = 5 B: 2+2 = 4 A: "Aha! So you concede that you were wrong!"
This is your argument in a nutshell where you are A and I am B. Nice try at browbeating though. It might work on the 3 year old you just referred to.
You asked a three year old if deities exist? And who got the "idea" of a deity into him/her in the first place? Were they born with it? No. By default no one believes in anything unless they're introduced to the idea in some way or the other.
I see you've conveniently sidestepped the Zokooloo argument as well. Tell me - are you a Zokooloo agnostic as well? Or do you categorically believe that Zokooloo's don't exist? Answer carefully for this question shall determine thy state of sanity.
You're avoiding the question. Answer me this: Do you think that god is a thought experiment just like the Zokooloo or not? Yes or no?
Oh well, no wonder you're having difficulty understanding what I'm saying.
TV off is no information. This is the default state, and the originating state
Exactly! (See, THAT'S how it's used) And atheism is the default state. The originating state. Just like non belief in a Zokooloo is the default state. The originating state. Atheism is so basic, that there's no need to even consider the question since by DEFAULT you don't believe in something you can't see. Just like you don't "believe" in a Zokooloo. Where is your data point for your non belief in a Zokooloo?
Babies are not agnostics. They're atheists until their parents (like you) introduce the very idea of a god to them. Just like you will introduce your kid to the idea of the Zokooloo and then foolishly tell them that they COULD exist.
In fact the question of whether there is a need for something is orthagonal to it's existence.
This is where you clearly don't get Occam's razor. You always require a need to say that it exists. Your ignorant example of extrasolar planets dooms you. There is NEED for extra solar planets to exist because they demonstrate effects like creating wobbles in their stars and dimming them periodically. Therefore there is most CERTAINLY a need for them to exist. Again - Occam's razor.
God on the other hand. No NEED since there's no phenomena that NEEDS explaining.
And to recap: Stating doctrine as fact (God is a thought experiment) doesn't convince people who don't adhere to those doctrines.
Woah. You mean god is NOT a thought experiment? Pray please enlighten me what the hell god is then! To put it bluntly, the idea of god is a rectum derived idea that someone made up one day. Just like my Zokooloo. Unless you claim that god was NOT made up - in which case where is your evidence? Remember...that whole Occam's razor thing we were talking about?
But you never having a shirt doesn't explain your memories of it. Occam's razor says that you either didn't search everywhere or have lost it.
y=0 is the simplest explanation? Why?
Please don't demonstrate your ignorance of the basic principles of scientific practice.
Atheism is a belief in the same way that the TV being off is a separate channel. The default position is always atheism since everything around us is explained by natural phenomenon with no need for god. You're the one positing an extra useless force called "god" that serves no purpose whatsoever. That my friend, is an extraordinary claim.
I read this as "Six million virgins vulnerable to brute force attack :D"
No - the widely accepted practice is that of Occam's razor. All thing being equal, the simplest explanation that requires the fewest factors is the correct one. By this standard, there IS no god because god is an extraneous factor.
So - when you're positing an extra useless force, you have to give good reasons for it. Ergo the burden is on you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.