The evolution of personality

Give it your best shot. I am dying to hear how this happened...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Give it your best shot. I am dying to hear how this happened...

You know what, you're absolutely right. I can't explain this, therefore it must have been God.

Wow - thanks dj2becker, I can't believe I never realised before.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Give it your best shot. I am dying to hear how this happened...

I think your personality could use a bit more evolving yet.

Once again dj2becker, you seem to be forgetting that every man doesn't know everything and that not even all men as a collective unit know everything. Yet somehow you seem to offer this up as proof for something else.

A lack of something is not proof that something else exists. Null hypothesis is required to turn the statement around and eliminate possibilities. Therefore we could say, I have something I think exists, so I shall present a null hypothesis which I shall attempt to disprove. If I manage to disprove it then I can say that it was wrong and as such be assured that my original statement is correct.

You, on the other hand, are presenting a positive hypothesis (there is a god) and attempting to prove it through a lack of evidence about something else (no-one can explain the evolution of personality). This is the complete reverse of empirical reasoning and solidifies nothing.

If you were to revisit your arguement and present a null hypothesis (there is no god) and then attempt to disprove it (present some proof which would show this statement to be false) then your debates would have more coherrency and you may even gain some ground in the pursuit of truth.

Originally posted by Starrman
Once again dj2becker, you seem to be forgetting that every man doesn't know everything and that not even all men as a collective unit know everything. Yet somehow you seem to offer this up as proof for something else.

A lack of something is not proof that something else exists. Null hypothesis is required to turn the statement around and eliminate pos ...[text shortened]... ur debates would have more coherrency and you may even gain some ground in the pursuit of truth.

That's what I said - only with sarcasm instead of eloquence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Give it your best shot. I am dying to hear how this happened...

simple - people with no personality don't attract girls/guys. No girl/guy, no sex. No sex, no procreation : you become extinct 😛

Originally posted by belgianfreak
simple - people with no personality don't attract girls/guys. No girl/guy, no sex. No sex, no procreation : you become extinct 😛

Heh. That's not bad...

Originally posted by jimmyb270
That's what I said - only with sarcasm instead of eloquence.

If only he were as correct as he was eloquent.

Originally posted by Darfius
If only he were as correct as he was eloquent.

Enlighten me on the error of my post please, most wise and logical Darfius, perhaps I am speaking gibberish or nonsense again?

Once again dj2becker, you seem to be forgetting that every man doesn't know everything and that not even all men as a collective unit know everything. Yet somehow you seem to offer this up as proof for something else.

Do you even know what the word proof means, pray tell? It seems neither becker nor any Christian presents it to you can sway your pre-set stance that God doesn't exist.

A lack of something is not proof that something else exists. Null hypothesis is required to turn the statement around and eliminate possibilities. Therefore we could say, I have something I think exists, so I shall present a null hypothesis which I shall attempt to disprove. If I manage to disprove it then I can say that it was wrong and as such be assured that my original statement is correct.

So if you were in an apartment with two roommates, and you find your favorite shirt missing, and you ask one if he took it, and he replies 'No', you would not take that as proof the other did? Or would you throw your hands up and be prepared to thoroughly investigate the other 6.5 billion people in the world to find your missing shirt?

You, on the other hand, are presenting a positive hypothesis (there is a god) and attempting to prove it through a lack of evidence about something else (no-one can explain the evolution of personality). This is the complete reverse of empirical reasoning and solidifies nothing.

What if he had presented God as a hypothesis and used His omnipotence to explain the creation of personality? Then it would be up to you to disprove it or it stands as our best theory. Ya know, like scientists do with evolution. It went from a hypothesis to a 'defend-to-the-death' theory overnight.

If you were to revisit your arguement and present a null hypothesis (there is no god) and then attempt to disprove it (present some proof which would show this statement to be false) then your debates would have more coherrency and you may even gain some ground in the pursuit of truth.

I find your suggestion hypocritical, as your stance is 'there is no God' and you have yet to provide one reason for believing it.

What do you mean by personality?

Merriam-Webster gives four definitions:

"1 a : the quality or state of being a person b : personal existence
2 a : the condition or fact of relating to a particular person; specifically : the condition of referring directly to or being aimed disparagingly or hostilely at an individual b : an offensively personal remark <angrily resorted to personalities>
3 : the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics
4 a : distinction or excellence of personal and social traits; also : a person having such quality b : a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety <a TV personality>"

If you mean 1) as in personality is the quality of being a person, then we must define how something qualifies as a person. If only humans qualify, then the question "where does personality come from," becomes "where do humans come from."

2) and 4) do not seem relevant.

Now if you mean definition 3), that is something like disposition or character, then many intelligent mammals seem to have a 'personality.'

Different dogs have different temperaments. The idiosyncrasies of among members of more intelligent species is even more refined.

Higher apes, for example, display varying degrees of humor, aggressiveness, and patience.

Is 3) basically what you mean by personality?

It seems neither becker nor any Christian presents it to you can sway your pre-set stance that God doesn't exist.

Darfius just because you agree with dj2becker's conclusion, it does not follow that you must agree with his method.

If it is the case that he hopes to assert that Christ is the only answer simply because a few people on RHP do not know where personality came from (and he has not stated this so far to my knowledge), then any intelligent person must accept that he has made a weak case.

(Not A) does not imply B unless (B U A) equals the entire sample space and B and A are mutually exclusive. This is certainly not the case if we substitute B for 'evolution' and A for 'The xtian God did it.'

So if you were in an apartment with two roommates, and you find your favorite shirt missing, and you ask one if he took it, and he replies 'No', you would not take that as proof the other did?

No. And I hope you wouldn't either. The person you asked may be lying. Other people may be in or may have been in the apartment. Hell, you may have lost your own damn shirt and neither one of them has done anything to it. That is why when using statistical tests, it is not generally precise to say, "accept the null hypothesis," rather it is more correct to say, "do not reject the null hypothesis."

What if he had presented God as a hypothesis and used His omnipotence to explain the creation of personality? Then it would be up to you to disprove it or it stands as our best theory.

Darfius, this is not how statistical tests work. Furthermore, the reason you couldn't disapprove it would be because you can't test it. In order for a hypothesis to be a theory, it must be testable. So if that had been his hypothesis, then no we could not disprove it, but it still would not be the best theory.

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by Darfius
Once again dj2becker, you seem to be forgetting that every man doesn't know everything and that not even all men as a collective unit know everything. Yet somehow you seem to offer this up as proof for something else.

Do you even know what the word proof means, pray tell? It seems neither becker nor any Christian presents it to you can sway your pre-set stance that God doesn't exist.

Darfius, when have you ever presented proof to me of god's existence? You have offered evidence to support your theory, but not once have you shown me proof.

A lack of something is not proof that something else exists. Null hypothesis is required to turn the statement around and eliminate possibilities. Therefore we could say, I have something I think exists, so I shall present a null hypothesis which I shall attempt to disprove. If I manage to disprove it then I can say that it was wrong and as such be assured that my original statement is correct.

So if you were in an apartment with two roommates, and you find your favorite shirt missing, and you ask one if he took it, and he replies 'No', you would not take that as proof the other did? Or would you throw your hands up and be prepared to thoroughly investigate the other 6.5 billion people in the world to find your missing shirt?

No, I would take it as evidence for the possibility that the other took it, but not proof. The proof would be if it was found in his possession. Once again you seem to misunderstand the concept of proof.

You, on the other hand, are presenting a positive hypothesis (there is a god) and attempting to prove it through a lack of evidence about something else (no-one can explain the evolution of personality). This is the complete reverse of empirical reasoning and solidifies nothing.

What if he had presented God as a hypothesis and used His omnipotence to explain the creation of personality? Then it would be up to you to disprove it or it stands as our best theory. Ya know, like scientists do with evolution. It went from a hypothesis to a 'defend-to-the-death' theory overnight.

I have already pointed out the floor in this method, if one claims something as a positive hypothesis one opens the possibility that there is more than one explanation for that hypothesis. It would not be up to me to disprove someone elses hypothesis at all, it is up to them to prove their sposition, they are the claimant.

If you were to revisit your arguement and present a null hypothesis (there is no god) and then attempt to disprove it (present some proof which would show this statement to be false) then your debates would have more coherrency and you may even gain some ground in the pursuit of truth.

I find your suggestion hypocritical, as your stance is 'there is no God' and you have yet to provide one reason for believing it.

You have failed to read my post and attempt to understand the reasoning. I have, as directed in my above post, stated a null hypothesis, namely 'there is no god' so I attempt to prove it wrong leaving the only possiblity, which is that there is a god. However, to date I have not managed to disprove the null-hypothesis at all. Until I do so I shall remain an Atheist. I do not find any hypocrisy in my original statement.

I tire of this endless battle you seem to want to have with me, I am here to debate, not wage some petty war for one-upmanship. If you encounter me in other forums you will find I am a perfectly amicable person, I have no desire to keep this playground fight going. I offer a truce. If you wish to carry on debating with me at any point in the future I would be glad to, but I will not continue squabble.

Originally posted by Starrman
[b]Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by Darfius
Once again dj2becker, you seem to be forgetting that every man doesn't know everything and that not even all men as a collective unit know everything. Yet somehow you seem to offer this up as proof for something else.

[i]Do you even know what the word proof means, pray te ...[text shortened]... ebating with me at any point in the future I would be glad to, but I will not continue squabble.[/b]

Truce, then. 😀

Though I was never squabbling. And I do have one more question. Are you honestly and actively attempting to disprove your null hypothesis? Because, as we are failing dismally, it seems, it may be up to you to disprove it. 🙂

Originally posted by Darfius
Truce, then. 😀

Though I was never squabbling. And I do have one more question. Are you honestly and actively attempting to disprove your null hypothesis? Because, as we are failing dismally, it seems, it may be up to you to disprove it. 🙂

I am. I once said to you that I would change my stance if you could prove gd's existence and I meant it. When I debate about the supernatural, I do so in an attempt to find an answer, the answer, whatever that is. I don't think I or anyone else will ever know for sure, so in the absence of proof I remain with my null-hypothesis, that god doesn't exist.

At times I will suffer the humanity of arrogance and pride for atheism, but if I am honest, it is not necessarily the position I want to remain in. What I am after is truth. Not god, or atheism. But I would be a hypocrite if I chose god in the absence of that truth.