Somehow humanity managed to move beyond Shakespeare, creating new-ish works which we prefer to his
There's only one response for this...WTF? Perhaps you prefer The Da Vinci Code to Shakespeare...but not all of us do
Yet, despite being well-loved and despite having been around longer than the Apple iPod, TiVo comes nowhere close to the iPod/iPhone's success. Apple sells more iPod and iPhone products in a single quarter than TiVo has sold in the entire lifetime of the company.
Why are you even comparing TiVo to the iPod. Why should it come close to the iPod/iPhone's success? They aren't competing products...Are you saying that a product is only successful if it sells the same number of units as an iPod or is as popular as an iPhone?
Imagine a Scrabble iPad game that used iPhones as letter holders. You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.' Now that would be cool.
Wasn't this in Back to the Future Part 2...along with all the other ridiculous, and pointless, "this is what we will have in the future" crap in that film.
people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once
Uhh...where did you get this information from? Most people I know watch the same movies more than once. All of my friends have a few favorite films that they would easily watch over and over (Office Space, Star Wars, Rocky Horror Picture Show etc.)
Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.
Have you heard of film studies? There are numerous journals (Cineaste, Film Comment, Film Quarterly etc.) and books etc. that discuss films in depth and I can definitely argue that "complete knowledge of the contents of a film increases, rather than decreases, the desire to see the film again and again..."
I am a Christian who believes the Bible. I therefore believe that "God created the heavens and the earth."
How does this differ from: "The Bible is the word of God. Because it tells us that God created the heavens and the earth, then God must have had some part in creating the heavens and the earth."
From what you said, I thought you were reasoning along those same lines as my above example statement (which is "begging the question"). Apparently I was mistaken and it is much more complex than that. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm trying to understand your argument.
I am a Christian who believes the Bible. I therefore believe that "God created the heavens and the earth."
I believe this is called begging the question. It's a type of logical fallacy and is not admissible in any intellectually honest debate. Please take a moment to review "begging the question." Google is your friend.
Our universe is so big and so old, that it is a thing that a God would make, not some puny planet but a tree's age old.
Have you confirmed this with a deity somewhere? How exactly do you know that this is what a God would make or are you assuming that this is what your conception of a God would make?
On second thought, I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time replying to this. I've read this 5 times and I still don't understand this sentence:
Maybe he can and he did, a simple set of equations that shape time and space into our universe that yields practically an infinity of variety, and is why we have free will.
Why exactly is free will even mentioned? Is this the age old argument that this is the best of all possible universes and that in order to be the best of all possible universes, it required free will. I won't even get into discussing that one -- it's been discredited by far brighter minds numerous times.
"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants
