The evolution of personality

Originally posted by telerion
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 re ...[text shortened]... rees of humor, aggressiveness, and patience.

Is 3) basically what you mean by personality?

I'd like to know what you mean by personality as well.

Energy level comes from mitochondrial DNA, I believe. High energy personalities probably evolved by being naturally selected for where food is abundant, and low energy personalities probably evolved where food was not abundant. Preferences come at least in part in what one's early experiences are - if one has good experiences, one will prefer those things associated with good experiences. This is clearly of survival value.

Originally posted by telerion
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 re ...[text shortened]... rees of humor, aggressiveness, and patience.

Is 3) basically what you mean by personality?

I would probably define personality as "The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are particular to a specific person."

Originally posted by Starrman
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, [b]the answer, whatever that is. I don't think ...[text shortened]... would be a hypocrite if I chose god in the absence of that truth. [/b]

I am. I once said to you that I would change my stance if you could prove gd's existence and I meant it.

Would you like to have tangible evidence for something intangible? What type of proof would you be willing to accept?

When I debate about the supernatural, I do so in an attempt to find an answer, [b]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. [/b]

Do you know that it is philosophically impossible to prove the non-existance of God? Yet the evidence of God is there to be seen by everybody. It is just a matter of your pre-suppositions the determine how you interpret the evidence. Thus if your pre-supposition is based on the non-existance of God, then you will not be able to interpret the the evidence as proof. Thus you create your own absence of proof, eventhough the evidence is there. In that way you are preventing yourself from finding the truth.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I would probably define personality as "The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are particular to a specific person."

That's a lot of stuff. It include fight or flight response, all emotions, preferences, skills...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you know that it is philosophically impossible to prove the non-existance of God? Yet the evidence of God is there to be seen by everybody. It is just a matter of your pre-suppositions the determine how you interpret the evidence. Thus ...[text shortened]... reate your own absence of proof, eventhough the evidence is there.

Do you know that it is philosophically impossible to prove the existence of God? Yet the lack of evidence for God is there for everyone to be aware of. It is just a matter of your pre-suppositions the determine how you interpret the lack of evidence. Thus if your pre-supposition is based on the existence of God, then you will not be able to interpret the lack of evidence as a lack of proof. Thus you create your own proof, eventhough the evidence is not there.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Do you know that it is philosophically impossible to prove the existence of God? Yet the lack of evidence for God is there for everyone to be aware of. It is just a matter of your pre-suppositions the determine how you interpret the lack of evidence. Thus if your pre-supposition is based on the existence of God, then you will not be able to interpre ...[text shortened]... idence as a lack of proof. Thus you create your own proof, eventhough the evidence is not there.

If you philosophically work your way backwards in the time frames of history you find it impossible to prove the non-existance of God.

Traditional "proofs" of God's Existence
1) The argument from Design.
If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed.

Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.

2) The ontological argument
God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.

3) The cosmological argument (God as "First cause"😉
Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.

http://www.philosopher.org.uk/god.htm

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you philosophically work your way backwards in the time frames of history you find it impossible to prove the non-existance of God.

Traditional "proofs" of God's Existence
1) The argument from Design.
If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere c ...[text shortened]... ecessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.

http://www.philosopher.org.uk/god.htm

Assertion 2 is a tautology and therefore logical rubbish and assertion 3 is internally inconsistent. I'll leave it to someone else to demolish "Hume's watch" (assertion 1) as I'm sure that there is a fine cut and paste available from an atheist website.

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you philosophically work your way backwards in the time frames of history you find it impossible to prove the non-existance of God.

Traditional "proofs" of God's Existence
1) The argument from Design.
If you found a clock an ...[text shortened]... This first cause is God.

http://www.philosopher.org.uk/god.htm

If you had read any actual philosophy, you'd realize that all these supposed proofs fail, and fail completely. Would you like to be run through the arguments? If you find the best presentation you can of the design, cosmological, or ontological argument, I'd be happy to flat out refute them for you here.

It's also a good idea to check your sources. The website you cribbed this from is run by a fellow without even an undergraduate degree in philosophy. He is an amateur.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Do you know that it is philosophically impossible to prove the existence of God? Yet the lack of evidence for God is there for everyone to be aware of. It is just a matter of your pre-suppositions the determine how you interpret the lack of evidence. Thus if your pre-supposition is based on the existence of God, then you will not be able to interpre ...[text shortened]... idence as a lack of proof. Thus you create your own proof, eventhough the evidence is not there.

The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)

His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.

If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.

Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?

Originally posted by dj2becker
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)

His argument goes something like this: God ...[text shortened]... a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?

Are you just now learning about Pascal's wager? Wow. Did you know that Pascal also thought that there was absolutely no evidence in favor of believing in God, that the only justification for believing in God would be pragmatic and not epistemic? You should check out some of the more common objections to the wager, for instance the "many gods objection". There are as many ways to refute Pascal as there are to skin a cat.

Edit: Please don't plagiarize. This is also from the amateur philosopher you cited above, so cite him properly.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)

His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If ...[text shortened]... r think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?

So, what if God was of a fundamentalist Islamic persuasion, and He only let Muslims into heaven? Don't you have just as good reason to pragmatically believe in Him as in the Christian God?

Originally posted by bbarr
Are you just now learning about Pascal's wager? Wow. Did you know that Pascal also thought that there was absolutely no evidence in favor of believing in God, that the only justification for believing in God would be pragmatic and not epistemic? You should check out some of the more common objections to the wager, for instance the "many gods objection". ...[text shortened]... plagiarize. This is also from the amateur philosopher you cited above, so cite him properly.

Yes, sorry about that. I'm not an expert in philosophy.

But here is The Causality Argument:

The Causality Argument:
1. Thomas Aquinas was probably the first to use the Causality Argument as published in his "Summa Theologica." Many others have arrived at the same point of view: Only nothing comes from nothing - everything else comes from something. Everything leads back to a more original form.
Thomas Aquinas argues that there is no case known in which a thing turned out to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. If, however, one thing was caused by another, there would be an infinite chain of cause and effect, which would be impossible. But if we take away the ultimate cause it is to take away the effect. If in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Thomas Aquinas also argued that the existence of motion itself suggests a prime mover (scientist developed for that purpose the 'Big Bang theory.' However, such a Bang could not have developed if there was absolutely nothing before. Therefore, the question remains where did this infinitely dense point of origin come from?)

St. Thomas Aquinas and his five proofs for the Existence of God:
1. The fact of change proves an ultimate agent of change!
2. The chain of causation proves a first cause that needs to be uncaused to
end the otherwise endless chain of events!
3. The contingent facts of the world require an ultimate Being!
4. The fact of graduation of things as higher and lower suggests Perfected
Being at the top of the hierarchy!
5. The order and design found in nature suggest a highest Being at the Source!

http://www.self-realization.com/prooffor.htm#The%20Design%20Argument

Originally posted by dj2becker
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)

His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If ...[text shortened]... r think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?

The author Terry Pratchett once stated that he wouldn't wish to be associated with a god who took in such 'just in casers'. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes, sorry about that. I'm not an expert in philosophy.

But here is The Causality Argument:

The Causality Argument:
1. Thomas Aquinas was probably the first to use the Causality Argument as published in his "Summa Theologica." Many others have arrived at the same point of view: Only nothing comes from nothing - everything else comes from somethin ...[text shortened]... t Being at the Source!

http://www.self-realization.com/prooffor.htm#The%20Design%20Argument

As Bertrand Russell once pointed out by way of analogy, just because every natural number has a preceding number, it does not follow that the set of all natural numbers has a preceding number.

Anyhow, something had to come from nothing, or just be there for all eternality, or we wouldn't be here now, would we? Why does not have to be God and not the universe?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
As Bertrand Russell once pointed out by way of analogy, just because every natural number has a preceding number, it does not follow that the set of all natural numbers has a preceding number.

Anyhow, something had to come from noth ...[text shortened]... e now, would we? Why does it have to be God and not the universe?

The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem, at first glance, to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity.

The first cause argument tells us that the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence.

This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.

It’s Impossible to Traverse an Infinite Series
If I told you that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with “infinity minus zero” and carrying on until I reached “infinite minus infinity, i.e zero”, then you would know that this claim is false. Just as it is impossible to count up from zero to infinity, so it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero. If I had started counting down from infinity and kept going, then I would still be counting to this day; I would not have finished. My claim to have counted down from infinity to zero must be false. This is because it is impossible to traverse an infinite series.

The Past Therefore Cannot be Infinite
The idea that the universe has an infinite past is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the ‘big bang’.

The past cannot go back forever, then; the universe must have a beginning. The next question is whether something caused this beginning, or whether the universe just popped into existence out of nothing. We all know, though, that nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause; nothing comes from nothing. For something to come into existence there must be something else that already exists that can bring it into existence. The fact that the universe began to exist therefore implies that something brought it into existence, that the universe has a Creator.

The First Cause Must Uncreated, Eternal
If this Creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time and so that came into existence, then it too would have to have been created by something. Nothing comes from nothing, not even God.

This tells us that the ultimate cause of the universe must never have come into existence; the ultimate Creator must be a being that exists outside of time, an eternal being with neither beginning nor end. (For a more detailed defence of this argument, see William Lane Craig’s The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe.)

http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html