L
Lamentations
Guest
Mate, you can’t copyright ideas.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
neophyte
Guest
That’s true, but one can certainly copyright his written work in which the idea is first expressed.Mate, you can’t copyright ideas.
M
MichaelLlenos
Guest
Hello Mountie,
I redid my ontological argument at my website. Please tell me is you find anything logically invalid. Thanks.
I redid my ontological argument at my website. Please tell me is you find anything logically invalid. Thanks.
M
MichaelLlenos
Guest
[I’m not a lawyer, but if you posted it to an open site you may already have lost them. I suggest that you file with the US Copyright Office immediately, like in the next five minutes]
I’m not worried about it. If I post my writings on an open site that doesn’t mean they are in the Public Domain. It’s not like I wrote them in the 1930s or before that. And, although I am no great writer, if someone else published my writings, I would bring a lawsuit against them. That’s why publishers make darn sure that their clients really wrote what they wrote and did not plagiarize anyone.
I’m not worried about it. If I post my writings on an open site that doesn’t mean they are in the Public Domain. It’s not like I wrote them in the 1930s or before that. And, although I am no great writer, if someone else published my writings, I would bring a lawsuit against them. That’s why publishers make darn sure that their clients really wrote what they wrote and did not plagiarize anyone.
M
MichaelLlenos
Guest
Yes you cannot copyright ideas. But you can copyright the pattern of words which you wrote.
And BTW why are people so hostile here? I’ve seen a lot of nice people at Mass this morning, and they weren’t judgemental or hostile at all to me.
And BTW why are people so hostile here? I’ve seen a lot of nice people at Mass this morning, and they weren’t judgemental or hostile at all to me.
N
neophyte
Guest
I have good reason to believe that you are wrong on that, but it’s no skin off my nose if you think otherwise.I’m not worried about it. If I post my writings on an open site that doesn’t mean they are in the Public Domain.
Your chances of winning will be low if you don’t have the copyright protection that comes only from registering your work, but again…And, although I am no great writer, if someone else published my writings, I would bring a lawsuit against them.
M
MichaelLlenos
Guest
[Your chances of winning will be low if you don’t have the copyright protection that comes only from registering your work, but again…]
I don’t think so, because that would be stealing. Do not steal: the Protestant/Jewish 8th commandment/statement, & the Catholic 7th commandment. Did you not have teachers or professors that said you cannot plagiarize someone else’s writings? I doubt anyone gets away with it in a court of law. I don’t care how many lies someone makes up, when they are cross-examined by a lawyer or judge the court will see the truth. They’re not stupid.
I don’t think so, because that would be stealing. Do not steal: the Protestant/Jewish 8th commandment/statement, & the Catholic 7th commandment. Did you not have teachers or professors that said you cannot plagiarize someone else’s writings? I doubt anyone gets away with it in a court of law. I don’t care how many lies someone makes up, when they are cross-examined by a lawyer or judge the court will see the truth. They’re not stupid.
S
STT
Guest
Do you have any argument in favor of whether any quality could be finite or infinite? Do you have any argument that show there is a upper-bound for any quality which higher than that is impossible?I’m a parishioner of the Honolulu Diocese. I’m a big fan of St. Anselm and his Ontological Argument. I’ve been trying to figure out an original ontological argument for years that is different from that of Anselm, Descartes, and Spinoza. I finally did and posted it at the top of my website.
(To get to my website just type Michael Llenos at Twitter and my Twitter page has my website link. I’m the black and white picture of a guy wearing glasses.) What do you think? Please no Gaunilo responses… And don’t post it here please since it’s my copyright… I would love a theologian who is an expert on the Ontological Argument to look it over…
W
Wesrock
Guest
I must disagree with premise 5. There are a couple points I’d like to cover.
The first is that a real potentiality for God doesn’t establish a priori that God actually exists, which is the question. A unicorn exists in no place. It does not mean it must actually exist somewhere else.
The second is that the essence of something existing intelligibly in the intellect is different than the essence of that something existing naturally. Both are the same form but in different modes of existence. The two cannot be conflated. That there is a mental conception of a unicorn doesn’t tell us that one exists in any real place in a natural way.
Ultimately you’re left resorting to Anselm’s ontological argument to attempt to make the leap (and I don’t think that follows either, but just saying), that something existing actually is greater than something existing potentially, and something subsisting in its own nature greater than something existing in the intellect, and the attempted conclusions that follow.
If a thing is non-existent its nature does not subsist as a real being in any place. Not in nature and certainly not in the intellect (to be in the intellect is to be something else, anyway).
The first is that a real potentiality for God doesn’t establish a priori that God actually exists, which is the question. A unicorn exists in no place. It does not mean it must actually exist somewhere else.
The second is that the essence of something existing intelligibly in the intellect is different than the essence of that something existing naturally. Both are the same form but in different modes of existence. The two cannot be conflated. That there is a mental conception of a unicorn doesn’t tell us that one exists in any real place in a natural way.
Ultimately you’re left resorting to Anselm’s ontological argument to attempt to make the leap (and I don’t think that follows either, but just saying), that something existing actually is greater than something existing potentially, and something subsisting in its own nature greater than something existing in the intellect, and the attempted conclusions that follow.
If a thing is non-existent its nature does not subsist as a real being in any place. Not in nature and certainly not in the intellect (to be in the intellect is to be something else, anyway).
Last edited:
M
MichaelLlenos
Guest
[Do you have any argument in favor of whether any quality could be finite or infinite?]
A finite number means any number less than the number infinite. An infinite number means that number with no greater number.
[Do you have any argument that show there is a upper-bound for any quality which higher than that is impossible?]
An infinite number means that number with no greater number and beyond no greater number. Both mean the same thing. Though some may have to give this some extra thought. Only God can count to an infinite number. Us finite beings cannot. When you count 1, 2, 3, infinite, that is not counting to the infinite number. You must count the whole thing. I talk about this at my website which link is in my profile. And there is a difference between counting forever and counting to the infinite number. Only an infinite mind can count to the infinite. All we finite creatures can do is count forever if we can live forever.
BTW I’m saving my future posts for more relavent topics.
A finite number means any number less than the number infinite. An infinite number means that number with no greater number.
[Do you have any argument that show there is a upper-bound for any quality which higher than that is impossible?]
An infinite number means that number with no greater number and beyond no greater number. Both mean the same thing. Though some may have to give this some extra thought. Only God can count to an infinite number. Us finite beings cannot. When you count 1, 2, 3, infinite, that is not counting to the infinite number. You must count the whole thing. I talk about this at my website which link is in my profile. And there is a difference between counting forever and counting to the infinite number. Only an infinite mind can count to the infinite. All we finite creatures can do is count forever if we can live forever.
BTW I’m saving my future posts for more relavent topics.
N
neophyte
Guest
If the person they stole it from can prove it’s theirs you’re right, but you’ll have a tough time proving that if you’re careless about properly registering your intellectual property. However, you seem to have convinced youself othwise, so have at it.I doubt anyone gets away with it in a court of law.
Good evening.
M
MichaelLlenos
Guest
#'s 4 & 5 should be opposites. To exist where you are and where you are not are supposed to be total opposites in there conclusions as well. In the last three minutes I rewrote #5 so it should be correct now.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I don’t know about being a theologian but I have a degree in philosophy.
Your argument derives a contradiction, at 7. Logically, you’ve disproven your own argument by reductio ad absurdum.
Your argument derives a contradiction, at 7. Logically, you’ve disproven your own argument by reductio ad absurdum.
M
MichaelLlenos
Guest
[If the person they stole it from can prove it’s theirs you’re right, but you’ll have a tough time proving that if you’re careless about properly registering your intellectual property. However, you seem to have convinced youself othwise, so have at it.]
The judge and lawyers will judge by probability. Who is more likely to have written The Elf that Met his Equal and More or some other writing of my mine: me or the person I’m suing? I have many reasons for each of the writings I wrote on my website. Plus, I have had that website for a long time. I have a history degree so I am no stranger to writing things. Then imagine the poor sucker who stole my work. Does he or she have reasons upon reasons or stories upon stories of why all of the ideas or pages of things were written the way they were? The lies told by the person who plagiarizes my works won’t mesh. My truthful account will mesh. Do you think lawyers and judges are stupid?
The judge and lawyers will judge by probability. Who is more likely to have written The Elf that Met his Equal and More or some other writing of my mine: me or the person I’m suing? I have many reasons for each of the writings I wrote on my website. Plus, I have had that website for a long time. I have a history degree so I am no stranger to writing things. Then imagine the poor sucker who stole my work. Does he or she have reasons upon reasons or stories upon stories of why all of the ideas or pages of things were written the way they were? The lies told by the person who plagiarizes my works won’t mesh. My truthful account will mesh. Do you think lawyers and judges are stupid?
Last edited:
M
MichaelLlenos
Guest
[
#'s 4 & 5 should be opposites. To exist where you are and where you are not are supposed to be total opposites in there conclusions as well. In the last three minutes I rewrote #5 so it should be correct now.]
All of the above nobody told me. I fixed it myself.
[This sounds like a work in progress.]
It is a work in progress. But since I have worked on it for a long time I’m reaching it’s proper conclusion.
BTW I am not posting it here because nobody helped me. All I heard was this is wrong or that is wrong in a generalized way. No specifics. I had to figure those out.
M
MichaelLlenos
Guest
[Your argument derives a contradiction, at 7. Logically, you’ve disproven your own argument by reductio ad absurdum]
The particular argument is brilliant because both opposites: God exists and that he doesn’t exist are both true saying he exists. So when I say:
3(opposite). He either exists where he is or where he is not.
He exists where he is is proven true since he exists where he is & He exists where he is not because he is omniscient.
The particular argument is brilliant because both opposites: God exists and that he doesn’t exist are both true saying he exists. So when I say:
- He either doesn’t exist where he is or where he is not.
3(opposite). He either exists where he is or where he is not.
He exists where he is is proven true since he exists where he is & He exists where he is not because he is omniscient.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
You can say that all you want. But it’s a simple rule of logic. If you derive P and ~P, you disprove the argument. In deriving a contradiction, you show that the logic fails. And with it, you can derive anything via the principle of explosion.The particular argument is brilliant because…
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
You heard it here first.[Edit: I just went to the web site. Hmmm. I don’t think anyone’s going to want to steal what you have written. Don’t worry about it.]
I’ll remember you said that…
And Mike, to use the quote function: After you have hit ‘Reply’ at the bottom right of the post to which you wish to reply to, in the dialogue box which appears there is a ‘word bubble’ in the top left of that box. Click that and it will enter the complete post. Either leave as-is or delete non relevant sections.
W
Wesrock
Guest
I don’t see how this resolves the issue. You wrote:#'s 4 & 5 should be opposites. To exist where you are and where you are not are supposed to be total opposites in there conclusions as well. In the last three minutes I rewrote #5 so it should be correct now.
How does it follow that “he exists someplace else than there?” If a thing is non-existent it does not exist in any place. There is no step to “it exists someplace else” instead.**5. If God doesn’t exist where he is not (then he exists someplace else than there)."
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
@MichaelLlenos Everything discussed here is timestamped, so in a way you’re making it known to the world what your theory is it. If someone else were to claim credit for it they would have to demonstrate they made it before you did or independently of you.
But really it’s a moot point. No one ever got rich off of theological proofs. You might be able to get a paper out of it, but as noted the theory is still a work-in-progress and CAF is as good a place as any to put it through its paces to make it stronger.
@MasterHaster Lorem ipsem?
But really it’s a moot point. No one ever got rich off of theological proofs. You might be able to get a paper out of it, but as noted the theory is still a work-in-progress and CAF is as good a place as any to put it through its paces to make it stronger.
@MasterHaster Lorem ipsem?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.