here's why i'm the legitimate owner of the universe

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=671850 time=1696605919 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671847 time=1696605589 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=671822 time=1696595306 user_id=11800]

It's possible that people don't realise you mean to be taken seriously.

It's the same problem that struck Skepdick when he did that thread about pissing off atheists, nobody realised he intended that nonsense to be treated as a real argument.
[/quote]

I assume anyone evidence based will go after a particular point. Or at least respond with a meh or a shrug.
[/quote]

Prove that yours is the best philosophy.
[/quote]

I've given the criteria. The important one is the coherence, for which i d have to give you the whole thing. Where do you want to jump in head first with both feet? Truth Wisdom encompasses ontology, mereology, meta-philosophy, metaphysics, proto-physics, meta-epistemology, and meta-ethics.

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=671851 time=1696606075 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671849 time=1696605870 user_id=15238]
[quote=commonsense post_id=671846 time=1696605512 user_id=14610]



The OP is a nice proof that the one with the best philosophy is the best philosopher and the legitimate owner of the universe.

Now you must show that yours is the best philosophy.
[/quote]

Now that's an evidence-based response. But you missed a step. The criteria must be legit as well as the assertion that the best philosopher had that legitimacy, before it matters whether any particular product meets it. is there a more reasonable way to check for best philosophy?
[/quote]

Check for best philosophy anyway you like, but disclose your’s so that it may be checked.
[/quote]

I have many times, but to check the most important criteria, coherence, requires knowing the whole thing. Where do you want to start?

[Atla]

I've given the criteria. The important one is the coherence, for which i d have to give you the whole thing. Where do you want to jump in head first with both feet? Truth Wisdom encompasses ontology, mereology, meta-philosophy, metaphysics, proto-physics, meta-epistemology, and meta-ethics.

How do you intend to solve the problem that most humans aren't interested in global collaboration, so they won't care about philosophies like yours?

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=671862 time=1696609880 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671860 time=1696609277 user_id=15238]
I've given the criteria. The important one is the coherence, for which i d have to give you the whole thing. Where do you want to jump in head first with both feet? Truth Wisdom encompasses ontology, mereology, meta-philosophy, metaphysics, proto-physics, meta-epistemology, and meta-ethics.
[/quote]
How do you intend to solve the problem that most humans aren't interested in global collaboration, so they won't care about philosophies like yours?
[/quote]

That's a matter of Practical Wisdom, which is contingent on technical details about everyone involved. My area is Truth Wisdom; mostly metaphysics. I probably have the best philosophy in Practical Wisdom by default just because no one else has the basics right. But as for your question, if humanity doesn't have the sense to grab the best philosophy when it shows up, what else is there to say?

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=671851 time=1696606075 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671849 time=1696605870 user_id=15238]
[quote=commonsense post_id=671846 time=1696605512 user_id=14610]



The OP is a nice proof that the one with the best philosophy is the best philosopher and the legitimate owner of the universe.

Now you must show that yours is the best philosophy.
[/quote]

Now that's an evidence-based response. But you missed a step. The criteria must be legit as well as the assertion that the best philosopher had that legitimacy, before it matters whether any particular product meets it. is there a more reasonable way to check for best philosophy?
[/quote]

Check for best philosophy anyway you like, but disclose your’s so that it may be checked.
[/quote]

Everything in the "to grok" series is most of it, in the metaphysics area. They're all perfectly consistent, internally and externally.

[commonsense]

Everything in the "to grok" series is most of [my philosophy] in the metaphysics area. They're all perfectly consistent, internally and externally.

Thanks

[Age]

No. Consider the evidence.

Show us your evidence please.

That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.

If the word and letter 'I' in the opening post is referring to the human being known here as "advoacate", and the one known as "advocate" here is claiming that 'it' is the so-called 'legitimate owner' of the Universe, Itself, then the very reason why NO has responded with a 'meaningful refutation', from 'your perspective', is because 'your' claim here "advocate" is so Truly ABSURD, LUDICROUS, and STUPID NO one has even taken 'your' CLAIM as worthy of even need ANY refutation, let alone A MEANINGFUL refutation.

Also, 'your' CLAIM that 'you' are the so-called 'best philosopher' does NOT even NEED 'refutation', as 'you' have, OBVIOUSLY, NOT YET PROVED that 'you' are even the so-called 'best philosopher' anyway.

That there is, or even could be, NO one so-called 'best philosopher' goes without saying, and thus is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute here anyway.

Only a Truly VERY FOOLISH one would think or believe that there could be just one 'best philosopher'.

Furthermore, even on 'prima facie', first glance, first sight, first view, or based on first impression 'your' argument, or claim, here "advocate" does NOT 'stand' AT ALL.

In fact even on the very first impression 'your' claim and argument here FELL ABSOLUTELY FLAT and TUMBLE DOWN COMPLETELY. Although, 'you', obviously, BELIEVE otherwise.

[Age]

Free helicopter ride.

Seems, 'PROVING that "Henry quirk" is only 'possessing', what is NOT legitimately owned by 'it', is about one of the most simplest and easiest 'things' to do here', happened even quicker, simpler, and easier than I was even expecting.

But we, obviously, still await to see if absolutely ANY one can show and prove that "henry quirk'" 'legitimately owns' a part of planet earth, and when for how long exactly some proposed 'legitimate ownership' began and lasts for

Everyone has the right to a common share of the accumulated wealth of humanity and the lowest that can mean is a place to be without someone else's permission. Ergo, everyone born legitimately owns part of Earth.

SO, what part of earth, exactly, do 'you', supposedly, 'own' "advocate"?

[Age]

That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.

The OP is primarly just a bunch of assertions, as I pointed out. For example, you didn't explain why the universe has an owner. And there are many other bald assertions in there. IOW it's not really an argument.
It is standing, but not on anything.

"advocate's" claim and so-called 'argument' here is 'standing' on nothing more than "adovate's" OWN BELIEF/S here.

And it's centered on a category error.

But more importantly:

You run into a room with a bunch of people interested in poetry. You are naked, riding on loud, uneven roller skates, with a huge sparkler sticking out of your ass and recite a poem.

The fact that people don't criticize your poem, does not mean it's a good poem. They are, hm, distracted.

Just to be clear: the assumptions in the title of the thread are the sparkler.

There IS an 'I' who ACTUALLY has 'the right' of 'ownership' of said Universe. However that 'I' is CERTAINLY NOT ANY human being, and the WHY and the HOW of ACTUAL 'ownership' IS 'granted' or WAS 'obtained', NEEDS to be FULLY UNDERSTOOD, FIRST, BEFORE any REAL True discussion could continue.

[Age]

I assume anyone evidence based will go after a particular point. Or at least respond with a meh or a shrug.

Prove that yours is the best philosophy.

I've given the criteria. The important one is the coherence, for which i d have to give you the whole thing.

Of which 'we', or 'I', am AWAITING.

Where do you want to jump in head first with both feet?

WHEREVER you like "advocate".

However, could using the words, ' jumping in 'head' first, with 'both feet' ', confuse 'things' somewhat here?

Truth Wisdom encompasses ontology, mereology, meta-philosophy, metaphysics, proto-physics, meta-epistemology, and meta-ethics.

Among OTHER 'things', but so what?

WHERE would 'you' like to START here "advocate"?

[Age]

Now that's an evidence-based response. But you missed a step. The criteria must be legit as well as the assertion that the best philosopher had that legitimacy, before it matters whether any particular product meets it. is there a more reasonable way to check for best philosophy?

Check for best philosophy anyway you like, but disclose your’s so that it may be checked.

I have many times, but to check the most important criteria, coherence, requires knowing the whole thing. Where do you want to start?

Where I would like 'to start' IS at 'the beginning' of 'your whole thing', "advocate". Would you care to express and share 'your whole thing' here "advocate"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if you would like to, then I AWAIT 'your whole thing'.

[Age]

I've given the criteria. The important one is the coherence, for which i d have to give you the whole thing. Where do you want to jump in head first with both feet? Truth Wisdom encompasses ontology, mereology, meta-philosophy, metaphysics, proto-physics, meta-epistemology, and meta-ethics.

How do you intend to solve the problem that most humans aren't interested in global collaboration, so they won't care about philosophies like yours?

Does "advocate" have a so-called 'philosophy' that could even cause or create a 'global collaboration'?

If 'it' has, then I am pretty sure that most humans could become 'interested', with the Right 'encouragement', of course.

[Age]

I've given the criteria. The important one is the coherence, for which i d have to give you the whole thing. Where do you want to jump in head first with both feet? Truth Wisdom encompasses ontology, mereology, meta-philosophy, metaphysics, proto-physics, meta-epistemology, and meta-ethics.

How do you intend to solve the problem that most humans aren't interested in global collaboration, so they won't care about philosophies like yours?

That's a matter of Practical Wisdom, which is contingent on technical details about everyone involved. My area is Truth Wisdom; mostly metaphysics.

What do the words and terms 'metaphysics', and 'Truth Wisdom', even mean or refer to, to 'you', exactly, "advocate"?

I probably have the best philosophy in Practical Wisdom by default

What do 'you' mean here by 'probably' "advocate"?

Before 'you' were implying that 'you' DID HAVE the 'best philosophy', right?

If no, then what were 'you' implying before?

just because no one else has the basics right.

The so-called 'basics' of 'what', exactly?

And, how would 'you' KNOW that absolutely NO one "ELSE" has the so-called 'basics' right?

Do 'you' KNOW the inner thinking or knowing of ABSOLUTELY EVERY one "ELSE"?

But as for your question, if humanity doesn't have the sense to grab the best philosophy when it shows up, what else is there to say?

A countless OTHER 'things' to say.

Also, and by the way, if 'you' have NOT YET expressed, and thus shared, 'your whole thing', which 'you' SAY and CLAIM is 'the best philosophy', then HOW could absolutely ANY 'grab' what 'you' have YET TO SHARE?

[Age]

Now that's an evidence-based response. But you missed a step. The criteria must be legit as well as the assertion that the best philosopher had that legitimacy, before it matters whether any particular product meets it. is there a more reasonable way to check for best philosophy?

Check for best philosophy anyway you like, but disclose your’s so that it may be checked.

Everything in the "to grok" series is most of it, in the metaphysics area.

WHEN are 'you' going to SHARE and EXPRESS 'it' ALL?

They're all perfectly consistent, internally and externally.

Well IF 'they' are ALL what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here, then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that ANY one could SAY that could SHOW OTHERWISE, to you, correct?

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=671944 time=1696658079 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671819 time=1696594309 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=671803 time=1696577637 user_id=11800]

Show us your evidence please.
[/quote]

That's what the OP is. Try again. You just really like to talk but so far no one has responded with a meaningful refutation to any point, so my argument stands prima facae.
[/quote]

If the word and letter 'I' in the opening post is referring to the human being known here as "advoacate", and the one known as "advocate" here is claiming that 'it' is the so-called 'legitimate owner' of the Universe, Itself, then the very reason why NO has responded with a 'meaningful refutation', from 'your perspective', is because 'your' claim here "advocate" is so Truly ABSURD, LUDICROUS, and STUPID NO one has even taken 'your' CLAIM as worthy of even need ANY refutation, let alone A MEANINGFUL refutation.

Also, 'your' CLAIM that 'you' are the so-called 'best philosopher' does NOT even NEED 'refutation', as 'you' have, OBVIOUSLY, NOT YET PROVED that 'you' are even the so-called 'best philosopher' anyway.

That there is, or even could be, NO one so-called 'best philosopher' goes without saying, and thus is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute here anyway.

Only a Truly VERY FOOLISH one would think or believe that there could be just one 'best philosopher'.

Furthermore, even on 'prima facie', first glance, first sight, first view, or based on first impression 'your' argument, or claim, here "advocate" does NOT 'stand' AT ALL.

In fact even on the very first impression 'your' claim and argument here FELL ABSOLUTELY FLAT and TUMBLE DOWN COMPLETELY. Although, 'you', obviously, BELIEVE otherwise.
[/quote]

I say "here's how you can tell the legitimate owner of the universe, by way of them being the best philosopher, for these specific reasons". and you say "nuh-uh". Nice talk.