Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[setarcos]

Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

If so what is the evidence?

Is there any evidence they can't exist?

 

[fantome profane]

What sort of evidence did you have in mind?

Empirical.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

If so what is the evidence?

Since man has all the potential of the demon, I guess look at the high security prisions and we will find many that made the choice.

But maybe many many more reside outside of incarceration.

The evidence is in all of us, unfolding in the level of our lack of virtues and morality.

Regards Tony

 

[Kenny]

Usually, when some miraculous event happens, then it is because it is a statistical deviation from the norm. However, some theists like to see it as a miracle. Let's check the consequences of that.

For instance, if a kid gets leukemia, and 99,999 percent of all kids that get that form of leukemia die, then the 0.001 percent who survives, it is because of God helped them.

The consequence is, of course, that if we thank God for that 0,001 percent, then we should sort of frown on His letting the other 99,999 percent die horribly. For thanking Him, would be the equivalent of thanking an SS nazi officer saving a jewish kid from the oven, while letting all the others being burned in, which looks counterintuitive and irrational. For both, God and the SS officer, would have the power to save all of them. And they are therefore morally equivalent, when it comes to save folks.

The logical conclusions follows: such miracles can only be performed by an inherently evil being. If the being would be moral, there would be no need of miracles. That is just a logical conclusion from the premises.

In normal situations, if a human could save 99,999%, but he doesn't, because he only saves 0,001%, he would be considered a monster. An immoral criminal. Someone nobody would like to be associated with.

So, why shouldn't God be treated the same way?

That is just an emotionless logical consideration, under the obvious amount of respect that your beliefs deserve.

Ciao

- viole

I think you are viewing it skewed.

Mesothelioma has the lowest survival rate of any cancer at approximately 10%. That means 10 out of 100 make it.

Are you saying we should say the treatment is ineffective because 9 out of 10 don't make it?

There are factors as to why some do and some don't but we don't say the doctor or the treatise is an immoral criminal.

What you are saying is that we should call the doctor and the treatment immoral because only 1 out of 10 get healed.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I believe it isn't as clear cut as that. Attacks can come from people and people's spirits as well. I believe the concept of a demonic spirit would be that it is a fallen angel.

How does a persons spirit attack you when they're not even there?
Yes, demons are fallen angels.

 

[Ostronomos]

Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

If so what is the evidence?

Yes, they are the embodiment of evil and negativity. They exist in a higher dimension. I have interacted with them through the 6th sense. I am one of the only people in the world who is capable of stepping out of the matrix. A demon even has a personality and it manifests itself as darkness. They communicate non-verbally with you if and only if you enter a higher dimension. These extra-dimensional beings defy all expectations of pathetic, feeble minded atheists (who have neither the intellect nor the capability to step out of the matrix and into this dimension).

And exchemist,

don't worry. You will enter that dimension when you die.

*sigh* Can't say the same for me though. As I will be building an artificial intelligence and transferring my consciousness into it right before I die. Thus fulfilling the prophecy of the great genius.

 

[Ostronomos]

I used to look for that evidence by talking to people who ought to have encountered demons. Occasionally I encountered people who would tell tall tales, but generally nobody had anything.

I have also seen some exorcisms or false exorcisms, but in spite of seeing such things I have yet to encounter someone that needs an exorcism.

I have also seen schizophrenia treated with medication, and its effectiveness seems to indicate that schizophrenia is biological not demonic. To me that rules out schizophrenia as any evidence of demons.

Hearing voices is another psychological problem, sometimes. In people that hear voices, the voices generally are contradictory from time to time. They make little sense and have more to do with paranoia and the desire to connect with others. Our own desires are often contradictory, and this results in hearing voices we don't like, too. We may hear, for example, rumors against us like whispers; and we may hear this in places where we are completely alone. These don't come as sounds but as the wish to hear sound, which may be strong enough to seem at times like sound. Other times a person is able to tell that there is no real sound.

Your search is finally over.

 

[Ostronomos]

Yea. I can definitly see demons as metaphors. I have my own to fight as well.

Definitely nothing in terms of a real entity exists anywhere.

Does your conviction warrant the title of "fool"? Yes, definitely.

 

[CharmingOwl]

I don't know about you but I feel demonic energy when listening to Satanic enns. The other day I was listening to a binaural enn of Lilith (The first wife of Adam who sprouted wings and left the garden of Eden) and then I heard a female voice in the air asking me "What do you need?" and then I said back "I'm just meditating." and it went away. From that day on I was super paranoid about listening to Satanic enns because I did not want to unwittingly summon any more demons. However a dark priestess explained to me how this stuff worked so I make sure that I am using these enns respectfully and properly such as for meditation or chanting them.

Also when I was listening to the angelic aspect chanting of Lucifer all day, I kind of felt positive energy go inside of my chest and body, so I am pretty sure that Lucifer is inside of me now. That probably sounds scary to someone who is Christian or comes from a more mainstream belief system but I think it's actually an improvement.

 

[ajay0]

As per the Hindu scriptures, demons are those human beings who lack virtues and are full of vices. The divine state in contrast are those human beings who lack vices and are full of virtues.

Hypocrisy, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and ignorance are the endowment of those born to a demonic state . Bhagavad Gita(16:4).

Theoretically, it is possible that some souls who have departed from human bodies due to death, maybe of a malevolent nature due to the preponderance of vicious tendencies in them.

However, Hinduism considers each soul to be originally divine and positive at the core, and vices to be accretions gathered due to intense desires in the form of cravings and aversions. These vicious tendencies can be removed by spiritual exercises such as meditation, selfless service, and cultivation of virtuous conduct and a loving, compassionate nature.

 

[LuisDantas]

Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

If so what is the evidence?

I don't think that demons can be made to work as an useful concept unless we accept that they are metaphors.

 

[PureX]

Are you sure?

If I testified that I have been abducted by aliens, would that serve as evidence that aliens exist, or existed?

Ciao

- viole

Yes, it would be evidence that aliens exist. Are you confusing evidence with proof? It appears that you may be confusing evidence with proof, as many people do when they want to claim that there is "no evidence".

 

[HonestJoe]

Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

If so what is the evidence?

You can't assess evidence until you properly define the hypothesis. The word "demon" means vastly different things to different people (sometimes even to the same people!). You need to establish exactly what you're talking about here. Then the effects and consequence we would be expect from that hypothesis can be assessed and only then can any evidence to support or counter them could be considered.

 

[Rival]

Not an interesting question, to my mind. If the question is asked "does X exist" the answer is already yes by virtue of being able to ask the question. At minimum, there is existence-as-concept or idea, which in turn means the thing named can have an influence on oneself and one's life. So I never ask "does X exist" but instead I ask "how am I able to understand X" and "what relationship do I have with X." Those are far more interesting questions.

How am I able to understand demons? What relationship do I have with demons? And there can be multiple answers too, for those of us who enjoy seeing from different perspectives.

My own religious tradition doesn't really factor in the concept of demons, for the most part. I understand the phenomena often attributed to them through a different map of the territory, so to speak. Loosely, "demon" is just an attribution made to a spirit/person/aspect that you have an adversarial relationship with. So if you have an adversarial relationship with anything there's your "evidence" for demons.

Demons

 

[viole]

Yes, it would be evidence that aliens exist. Are you confusing evidence with proof? It appears that you may be confusing evidence with proof, as many people do when they want to claim that there is "no evidence".

I am not confusing evidence with proof. I know that because I am in the “proof” business myself.

However, I don’t think that personal experiences count as evidence. In the same way, I think we can still claim that there is no evidence of extra-terrestrial life, despite so many claims of UFOs, abductions and so.

first we need to remove delusions, exaggeration, acquired metaphysical beliefs, mental issues, and all that, before we can have a level of evidence even close to the extraordinary character of the claim.

Because if we do not do that, we would have evidence of many other things. Like astrology, the positive effects of homeopathy, and a whole plethora of pseudo-science.

ciao

- viole,

 

[PureX]

I am not confusing evidence with proof. I know that because I am in the “proof” business myself.

However, I don’t think that personal experiences count as evidence.

I would appreciate an explanation as to why you think this, if you have one. Because it is obvious to me that other people will experience things that I may never experience, and likewise. And that we can all learn from each other's experiences even though we have not had the experience, ourselves. So why would you adopt the idea that other people's experiences should be disregarded just because you have had no similar experiences? Also, if you're willing to accept your own personal experiences as "valid evidence", why would you reject someone else's as valid evidence?

In the same way, I think we can still claim that there is no evidence of extra-terrestrial life, despite so many claims of UFOs, abductions and so.

I fail to see the logic for making that claim. Can you explain?

first we need to remove delusions, exaggeration, acquired metaphysical beliefs, mental issues, and all that, before we can have a level of evidence even close to the extraordinary character of the claim.

Why are you automatically assuming that these issues are affecting other people's perceptions, but not your own?

Let me give an example. If I take a hallucinogenic drug and experience a vision of God, you're going to assume that the drug created a false experience, and that I did not actually experience a vision of God. Right? But in fact you have no way of knowing that the drug did not simply enable a very real experience of God. You are just assuming it based on nothing but your own bias against people being able to experience visions of God. So let's say you decide to try the drug yourself, but when you do, you have no vision of God. So again to assume that the my vision was false. Yet it could be that you didn't experience the vision because you presumed it would be a false vision in advance, disabling the whole possibility.

Our preconceived biases determine to a large degree what we experience in the world, and how we experience it. And consequently, also what we do not experience in the world, and why not. All the more reason to pay attention to the experiences of others, and pay heed to them.

Because if we do not do that, we would have evidence of many other things. Like astrology, the positive effects of homeopathy, and a whole plethora of pseudo-science.

ciao

- viole,

What's wrong with "pseudo-science"?

 

[viole]

would appreciate an explanation as to why you think this, if you have one. Because it is obvious to me that other people will experience things that I may never experience, and likewise. And that we can all learn from each other's experiences even though we have not had the experience, ourselves. So why would you adopt the idea that other people's experiences should be disregarded just because you have had no similar experiences? Also, if you're willing to accept your own personal experiences as "valid evidence", why would you reject someone else's as valid evidence?

Because for me evidence is objective, not subjective. If the claim is extraordinary, like gods or ufos, then we require comparable extraordinary evidence. We need to exclude all possible psychological, cultural, chinese whisper effects, simple lies, and all those mundane things, so that what is left is the evidence of something really extraordinary.

but we are not even close to that. People are unreliable, in general. Even eye witnessing is unreliable. People confuse their mental delusions with demons. And the form and shape of those demons depend on where those people were born, which makes their experiences cultural dependent.

if I told you, if I swore on my kids, that I experienced Superman, that he picked me up to have a joy ride on his back over the alps, would you consider that evidence, even a slightly little tiny bit of evidence, for Superman?

I fail to see the logic for making that claim. Can you explain?

The logic is that personal experiences of extra terrestrials does not count as extraordinary, since the existence of aliens would be something extraordinary. It is not even ordinary evidence, since it can be explained by much more mundane things. Including delusions, psychological unreliability, garden variety lying, and all those things that make humans unreliable when they make claims, by default. Only when you have ruled out all possible naturalistic explanations, you can start consider the supernatural ones.

that is also why we need tools, like science, to remove the human factor.

Why are you automatically assuming that these issues are affecting other people's perceptions, but not your own?

Let me give an example. If I take a hallucinogenic drug and experience a vision of God, you're going to assume that the drug created a false experience, and that I did not actually experience a vision of God. Right? But in fact you have no way of knowing that the drug did not simply enable a very real experience of God. You are just assuming it based on nothing but your own bias against people being able to experience visions of God. So let's say you decide to try the drug yourself, but when you do, you have no vision of God. So again to assume that the my vision was false. Yet it could be that you didn't experience the vision because you presumed it would be a false vision in advance, disabling the whole possibility.

Our preconceived biases determine to a large degree what we experience in the world, and how we experience it. And consequently, also what we do not experience in the world, and why not. All the more reason to pay attention to the experiences of others, and pay heed to them.

Because I do not have those perceptions. I used to have them when I was a Christian, but now it is very clear to me that I was deluding myself. I was just positively biased. I accepted immediately explanations like, god answered my prayers, there is a demon playing with me, and ll that, when it was nothing but confirmation bias. All such “miracles” where ultimately reduced to naturalistic phenomena, turned in supernatural by a deluded mind craving to see those things. My own.

And of course. I cannot exclude a priori that those experiences are true. I cannot exclude a priori that my friend from Iceland really experienced the objective presence of trolls in his garden.or my Hindu friend experiencing Ganesh, the elephant God. I just argue that claiming to have experienced them is not evidence thereof. It is not. Even if it was true. Especially because, as in the case of my Hindu friend and Ganesh, and my Muslim friend with Allah, we would have evidence of contradicting claims, that undermine the reliability of those experiences anyway.

What's wrong with "pseudo-science"?

nothing. In fact, It is not even wrong.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I think you are viewing it skewed.

Mesothelioma has the lowest survival rate of any cancer at approximately 10%. That means 10 out of 100 make it.

Are you saying we should say the treatment is ineffective because 9 out of 10 don't make it?

There are factors as to why some do and some don't but we don't say the doctor or the treatise is an immoral criminal.

What you are saying is that we should call the doctor and the treatment immoral because only 1 out of 10 get healed.

of course not. The doctor does not claim omni potency, nor omni benevolence, does she? She is just a fallible human being trying to do what she can. Using science obviously, knowing the medical record of prayers over the centuries.

But your God has all those attributes, allegedly. He is almighty, He can do whatever He wants. And He is Omni good, apparently.

So, why doesn’t He save ALL kids?

The conclusion, under the premises of omni potency and omni goodness are obvious.

God does not save all kids because this is His will, and that would ultimately result in a greater good for everyone. There is really no logical escape from that conclusion.

Ergo, when a child draws her terminal breath in the hospital, the logically coherent Christian mother can only rejoice and scream “Alleluia”. Anything short of that, would signal lack of confidence in the wisdom of God and the ultimate good that will derive from that little dead body.

Actually, this can be extended to everything that happens in the world.

the coherent Christian, that does not like X, can try to pray it out to God. But if it remains, he will be forced to accept that X is in God’s will, and therefore a good thing.

anything short of that would be irrational. Or self defeating. It is a simple logical entailment deriving from the premises of the Christian faith. With all due respect, of course.

ciao

- viole

 

[Apostle John]

Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

If so what is the evidence?

1. They are mentioned in the Bible and the Bible hasn’t been disproved by anyone.
2. There’s no other explanation for the cause of natural evil, like illnesses and natural disasters.
3. The Bible and the existence of God often comes under attack by demons working for the devil as taught in Ephesians 6:10.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would appreciate an explanation as to why you think this, if you have one. Because it is obvious to me that other people will experience things that I may never experience, and likewise. And that we can all learn from each other's experiences even though we have not had the experience, ourselves. So why would you adopt the idea that other people's experiences should be disregarded just because you have had no similar experiences? Also, if you're willing to accept your own personal experiences as "valid evidence", why would you reject someone else's as valid evidence?
I fail to see the logic for making that claim. Can you explain?
Why are you automatically assuming that these issues are affecting other people's perceptions, but not your own?

Let me give an example. If I take a hallucinogenic drug and experience a vision of God, you're going to assume that the drug created a false experience, and that I did not actually experience a vision of God. Right? But in fact you have no way of knowing that the drug did not simply enable a very real experience of God. You are just assuming it based on nothing but your own bias against people being able to experience visions of God. So let's say you decide to try the drug yourself, but when you do, you have no vision of God. So again to assume that the my vision was false. Yet it could be that you didn't experience the vision because you presumed it would be a false vision in advance, disabling the whole possibility.

I would assume that the hallucinogenic drugs were affecting one's brain in the ways that they are demonstrably known to, such as causing hallucinations, delusions, etc. I wouldn't see any reason to make any other assumption since the effects of hallucinogenic drugs on our brains are fairly well understood.
And that is not an empty assumption, rather it's based on years of scientific study of neuropsychopharmacology. In other words, that's what the evidence indicates.

Our preconceived biases determine to a large degree what we experience in the world, and how we experience it. And consequently, also what we do not experience in the world, and why not. All the more reason to pay attention to the experiences of others, and pay heed to them.
What's wrong with "pseudo-science"?