Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
That again is a delusion. Enlightenment is not for gaining dollars, but getting answers to difficult questions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?
- Thread starter danieldemol
- Start date
-
- Tags
- demons
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Satan is not 'held'. He has been allowed to impart may-hem in the world.
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
And how are the eastern religions going to gain this magical/mysterious enlightenment? Science is nowhere near to answering questions on creation than it was since the so called Age of Enlightenment. Realistically there’s a limit to what science can answer.
ElishaElijah
Return
It means he is reserved for judgement, his day is coming, he isn’t getting away with anything.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Perhaps you could tell that to Dan, and other scientists, and detectives who actually use the term physical evidence. I'd be interested to hear their response, especially Dan's, who liked your post.
Better yet, you can reveal this knowledge to the world, by writing a blog, or book. Many people might find it interesting. Including the authors of this page.
Differences Between Physical and Circumstantial Evidence
- Physical Evidence – Physical, tangible pieces of evidence found at the scene of the crime. Also known as scientific evidence, these materials can include: gunshot residues, hair samples, DNA evidence, serial numbers, fingerprints, substances.
- Circumstantial Evidence – includes evidence that suggests a fact rather than proves it, based on implication rather than knowledge or observation. This can include eye-witness testimony where a witness saw someone who looked like the accused commit the crime. It can include footprints that match a shoe of the accused.
Of course, when we speak of observation, observing an effect is not the same as observing a cause.
We may have evidence of a phenomenon, but it is not physical evidence for what we call that phenomenon.
It's evidence - circumstantial. It could well be no evidence at all, for what we believe.
Here is a useful article.
Many consciousness researchers underestimate the depth of the challenge, believing that we just need to continue examining the physical structures of the brain to work out how they produce consciousness.
The problem of consciousness, however, is radically unlike any other scientific problem. One reason is that consciousness is unobservable. You can’t look inside someone’s head and see their feelings and experiences. If we were just going off what we can observe from a third-person perspective, we would have no grounds for postulating consciousness at all.
Of course, scientists are used to dealing with unobservables. Electrons, for example, are too small to be seen. But scientists postulate unobservable entities in order to explain what we observe, such as lightning or vapour trails in cloud chambers. But in the unique case of consciousness, the thing to be explained cannot be observed. We know that consciousness exists not through experiments but through our immediate awareness of our feelings and experiences.
What's the physical evidence for consciousness?
Some claim to be on track to that answer.
A New Theory in Physics Claims to Solve the Mystery of Consciousness
Do you have an answer?
I would be interested in hearing it.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Way to go. You can't beat that.... but maybe someone will. Let's see.What is considered evidence:
15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations
Learn definitions and examples of 15 common types of evidence and how to use them to improve your investigations in this helpful guide.www.i-sight.com
nPeace
Veteran Member
There is evidence in the Bible. There is evidence the Bible is authentic.
I posted this in my first post, and I repeated it to you.
If you hate that evidence, that's your problem.
That's between you and God... and Jesus. Not me.
If you want to parrot yourself for the rest of the thread, feel free.
I'm not talking about repeating the Bible. I'm talking about evidence that you can show others right now.
The Bible, even for one that believes in it, is claims and not evidence.
I told you all I want to hear from you is evidence to support your claims. All you have are insinuations and insults that don't support your claims, but attack me instead.
You cannot bring yourself to admit that you don't have objective evidence and you hate the fact that I have put you in that position. Personal attacks on me are the evidence for that.
Good day.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I think you are talking about anything that does not suit you, and that you can argue against, because I have to wonder if you are actually listening to anything I have said.
If you actually are listening... which does not appear to be the case, I have to wonder are you thinking about anything I say, or just talking?
This is from my earlier post. I will only say this one more time.
Invisible dark matter makes up most of the universe – but we can only detect it from its gravitational effects.
Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
Demons as descried in the Bible, are described as spirit. They are invisible - not physical. They are described as having the ability to manifest materially, but are not affected by matter of that nature. They are not detected with our physical senses.
Their effects though, can be discerned, and observed.
Something does not need to e 'physical' to exist, and the evidence does not need to be 'physical'. The effects however, can be detected with our senses, which are not always by physical contact.
For example, can we feel magnetism?
What scientist claim, or believe are not always true, or reliable. Actually, for the most part scientific conclusions are based on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct.
Remarkable New Theory Says There’s No Gravity, No Dark Matter, and Einstein Was Wrong
A theoretical physicist proposes a new way to think about gravity and dark matter.
Gravity is a Myth
For the first time in human history, you will learn about the accretion law of the gravity force in the quantum mechanics structure of the atom, versus the belief in an external force where a body of mass is the creator of gravity. I am presenting the unprecedented theory that gravity is inside the hadron that supplies all the gravity and unification among all the elements in the Universe. By knowing the principles of quantum mechanics, I assure that you will understand how easy it is to discard the majority of beliefs of a mechanical universe, not only the Big Bang theory but also the mechanical gravity theories of Newton and Einstein, and replace these theories with quantum mechanics gravity in the atom.
Einstein showed Newton was wrong about gravity. Now scientists are coming for Einstein.
Scientists know that at some point in a black hole, Einstein's theory stops working. “The curvature of spacetime is so extreme that Einstein's general relativity fails," said Kip Thorne, a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology, who wasn't involved in the new research.
... This is how we get to some place where we discover [Einstein's] theory no longer works."
A theoretical physicist proposes a new way to think about gravity and dark matter.
Gravity is a Myth
For the first time in human history, you will learn about the accretion law of the gravity force in the quantum mechanics structure of the atom, versus the belief in an external force where a body of mass is the creator of gravity. I am presenting the unprecedented theory that gravity is inside the hadron that supplies all the gravity and unification among all the elements in the Universe. By knowing the principles of quantum mechanics, I assure that you will understand how easy it is to discard the majority of beliefs of a mechanical universe, not only the Big Bang theory but also the mechanical gravity theories of Newton and Einstein, and replace these theories with quantum mechanics gravity in the atom.
Einstein showed Newton was wrong about gravity. Now scientists are coming for Einstein.
Scientists know that at some point in a black hole, Einstein's theory stops working. “The curvature of spacetime is so extreme that Einstein's general relativity fails," said Kip Thorne, a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology, who wasn't involved in the new research.
... This is how we get to some place where we discover [Einstein's] theory no longer works."
With the above in mind, here are some pieces of evidence for demons' existence, which I accept.
1. Jesus said demons exist, and Jesus identified there origin. Jesus said he is of that origin. Jesus is more reliable than any scientist, on this matter. He identified their existence, and their activities.
2. The Bible said demons are powerful spirit beings, similar in nature to God. The Bible is more reliable than any scientist... on this matter. The Bible explains the origin of demons, and their activities.
3. The above two sources are verified by the activity we see present in the world, along with the evidence of the Bible's trustworthy record.
Of course, we cannot prove everything that demons are behind, but we can infer that there are animal and demonic behaviors which are not carried out by "normal" human beings, based on the knowledge we have on them.
Aside from these, evidence the Bible is the inspired word of God, gives us no reason to doubt that demons exist.
Primary Source Research and Discovery
Primary sources
A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, audio and video recordings, speeches, and art objects. Interviews, surveys, fieldwork, and Internet communications via email, blogs, listservs, and newsgroups are also primary sources. In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies—research where an experiment was performed or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences.
Secondary Sources
Secondary sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research.
Contrary to your claim, eyewitness testimony is evidence. It is a primary source of evidence, and is based, not on circumstantial evidence, but direct evidence.
Whether I like the evidence, or not, is irrelevant.
If I would rather see a pig fly to accept it as evidence, is irrelevant.
What is more, if the testimony is reliable based on moral character, and consistency with facts, it is strong evidence.
How many times would you like to hear it?
You called my post nonsense. Do you consider that attacking me?
I referred to your post as absolute rubbish. Do you consider that as attacking you?
Either I am in the twilight zone, or some people just can't see themselves.
I tell persons here, if you are going to throw stones look out for boulders.
Objective evidence? That's a new one. It seems you have not run out of strawman. You create one every post.
The OP asked for evidence. In case you are ignorant of what evidence is...
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact — such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly — i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
I guess by that you can figure out that the OP asked for evidence, and that what I gave was evidence.
However, if you want to change the OP, you can perhaps start by giving the objective evidence for Dark Matter.
Some scientist say it's subjective.
There is no dark matter... physicist says
a series of developments has revived a long-disfavored argument that dark matter doesn’t exist after all. says a theoretical physicist
Dark matter: should we be so sure it exists? Here’s how philosophy can help
If you disagree, you can post the competing. That would be interesting to see.
Good day to you as well.
I have read what you posted. It hasn't changed. It is still nonsense. My previous assessment of it still stands unassailed by your arguments from ignorance and straw man tactics.
I find it amusing that you use science when it is convenient, deny it when it is inconvenient and declare it always bankrupt of knowledge at all times.
Objective evidence is not new and not something that has come up in discussions for you either. Why the pretense. Don't answer that. I don't think anyone needs to see acres of response in multiple fonts of different size, color and bolding with all the emojis flying at full mast.
YOU HAVE GIVEN NO EVIDENCE.
All that you have done has been explained away. Repeating flawed logic and empty, irrational claims is not evidence. But it is consistent with much of what you post.
I did like the fact that you claim I denied eyewitness testimony when I did no such thing. What do you call it when you claim someone did something they didn't do?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Through knowledge. Science answers most questions. Limits are only in peoples' minds. How do you know that there is a line beyond which science will not be able to go? Are you a God-sent prophet?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The day has been in coming since Jesus was crucified. Jesus told his disciples that it will come in their life-time. Keep on waiting and pushing the date further.
ElishaElijah
Return
There’s some debate on that but I’m glad so
more people can get saved.
“knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”
II Peter 3:3-9 NKJV
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
It depends on what you mean by "consciousness." If we're using that term to refer to wakefulness or metacognition, then we already understand the parts of the brain responsible for these physical processes. We know what medications and what kind of brain damage can impair or distort these parts of the brain, too, leading to what we call "altered states of consciousness." There are some specific aspects about it we do not fully understand yet, as with almost anything in science, but we have a decent enough understanding that we know it is a physical process in the brain as well as how this process works in broad terms.
If you're merely using it as a way of referring to the soul, like those who insist on the existence of some "hard problem of consciousness," then what you refer to as "consciousness" doesn't actually exist. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of physical processes, caused by the faulty heuristic that our brains evolved to help sort animated objects like family and predators apart from inanimate objects like rocks. It's also a heuristic that's prone to fault, such as imagining that the sky itself is somehow conscious, or that there is a consciousness behind the universe. This sort of consciousness does not exist.
None of that is relevant to our current discussion, although I commend what I will charitably interpret as your genuine scientific curiosity, so I would like to take us back on-topic for a moment.
As for the rest of your post, I will indeed openly disagree with the idea that the word "evidence" does not refer to something that is inherently physical. That is the general use of that word. I am a little confused about why you're using an idiosyncratic definition of "physical evidence" that applies to the very narrow field of criminal investigation and why you think it's relevant to the conversation, but hopefully you can now understand why your use of this term has caused so much confusion among me and other users in this thread? Even in the various types of evidence you listed here, they are all still physical.
Even footprints and eye-witness testimony are physical. Footprints are impressions left by a physical object (a shoe or a foot) through a physical medium (such as the ground or something tracked on a shoe). Eye-witness testimony is often written or spoken, both of which are physical processes and can be physically recorded.
I'm not sure why you're presenting this as some sort of attack on my definition of evidence or why you expected anyone else in this thread to know what you were referring to with this phrase. Charitably, perhaps there were plenty of context clues that should have keyed us in to what you meant, but that doesn't reduce my definition of evidence down to "just my opinion" and elevate yours to "what scientists actually use"
And it's at that point that my attempts to interpret your reply charitably begin to strain my credulity. Personally, I have no intention of furthering a discussion with someone that I am reasonably sure is acting in bad faith, so I apologize if I stop responding here. I probably shouldn't have written this response, if I'm being honest, but I nearly finished it by the time I realized this and I might as well post it at this point.
Last edited:
Making counter-arguments based on supposition is not debunking. I’m surprised you don’t know the difference.You got to the end of that thread and still think your "evidence" holds water after being debunked for pages? Eek.
And the evidence of many well-preserved specimens of megafauna found within the freshwater northern hemisphere Permafrost —- not on top of it; within it — and how they got there, is consistently …. overlooked. (I don’t want to say “ignored”, because that’s a fightin’ word… but it amounts to the same thing.)
And another plausible explanation has never been provided.
This global anomaly just hasn’t been explained by any natural means.
Last edited:
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
Not a prophet, I just have common sense. Are you hoping on finding where substance comes from?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Substance, material? What is that? U-235 or the energy that fission releases. That is 17th Century speak. Not sure, but most probably energy is always there, whether in an existent form or in a non-existent form. Science will find it out in years to come.
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
You will have to hope it’s soon. No facts on creation have been discovered for the past 500 years that science has tried.
I know nothing about the phenomenon you're describing (and I'll bet money you don't know too much either), but the fact that no other plausible explanation has been provided doesn't mean your favorite explanation is the right one. Or that it's even plausible. How did a flood create permafrost? Why did a global flood that creates permafrost only create it in one part of the world? Show me evidence, not supposition (since I see how against that you are).