Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[ElishaElijah]

Yeah, that's called an anxiety attack. No demons required.

Well, haven’t seen that by kids playing monopoly but just using a demonic board game consulting the dead.

 

[Orbit]

It's your word against mine.

I have evidence of many past cases of mass hysteria. Do you need me to post them?

 

[SkepticThinker]

They don’t? How do they define themselves then? By the dictionary? Make up terms or what? Care to explain what you mean by that?

It means that everyone doesn't follow the Bible as some sort of absolute truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, haven’t seen that by kids playing monopoly but just using a demonic board game consulting the dead.

Uh yeah, because the kids have been told that's what it is. So when they play with it, all those fears are already in their heads.
No such thing exists for the game of monopoly, as far as I know.

 

[nPeace]

I have evidence of many past cases of mass hysteria. Do you need me to post them?

There is evidence f mass hysteria. There is evidence of Folie à deux. Therefore every case must definitively be either. Is that your argument?
Would you prefer a doctor that examines you to determine your condition, or determines your condition based on diagnosis of other people?
You have a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis.

 

[dybmh]

Well, haven’t seen that by kids playing monopoly but just using a demonic board game consulting the dead.

Belief in the demonic opens the door.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It means that everyone doesn't follow the Bible as some sort of absolute truth.

That’s obvious

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is evidence f mass hysteria. There is evidence of Folie à deux. Therefore every case must definitively be either. Is that your argument?
Would you prefer a doctor that examines you to determine your condition, or determines your condition based on diagnosis of other people?
You have a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis.

There is evidence for mass hysteria. There is evidence for folie a deux. There is no evidence for demons.
So, in light of that, which one is the most likely explanation, do you think?

That is part of how doctors diagnose illness; by comparing your symptoms with known collections of symptoms experienced by other people diagnosed with the illness.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That’s obvious

Then it should also be obvious that quoting the Bible at people who don't accept it as some absolute truth is pretty pointless.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Then it should also be obvious that quoting the Bible at people who don't accept it as some absolute truth is pretty pointless.

Well this post is about demons so what is your definition? Also, the scripture quoting was to people who “claimed” to be Christians yet don’t believe the Bible so not sure why you are going this route.

 

[ElishaElijah]

There is evidence for mass hysteria. There is evidence for folie a deux. There is no evidence for demons.
So, in light of that, which one is the most likely explanation, do you think?

That is part of how doctors diagnose illness; by comparing your symptoms with known collections of symptoms experienced by other people diagnosed with the illness.

Sure there is and it’s already been demonstrated it wasn’t mass hysteria or folie a deux. Doesn’t even fit the definitions.
But people and their comments on this thread have fit the Biblical definition of being demonized. Notice I didn’t say people were demons.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It would be nice if the originator of the OP would define what he means by “Demons”. By the Biblical definition of what a demon is, how they operate and influence people, that is obvious in our society and also with the comments on this thread.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Then it should also be obvious that quoting the Bible at people who don't accept it as some absolute truth is pretty pointless.

Yes, it is pointless because we don't believe the Bible has moral authority over anything or has the final say on any issues.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sure there is and it’s already been demonstrated it wasn’t mass hysteria or folie a deux. Doesn’t even fit the definitions.
But people and their comments on this thread have fit the Biblical definition of being demonized. Notice I didn’t say people were demons.

When did anyone demonstrate it isn't either of those things??

I think it's pretty obvious these girls caused themselves panic attacks. I am speaking as a person who has had many panic attacks.

 

[ElishaElijah]

When did anyone demonstrate it isn't either of those things??

I think it's pretty obvious these girls caused themselves panic attacks. I am speaking as a person who has had many panic attacks.

Because the definition doesn’t match what happened. So what’s your definition of a demon and what evidence would you be looking for to verify that exactly?

 

[setarcos]

I don't have a belief in god, and no amount of mental gymnastics is going to turn that into a belief or a claim.

Agreed. And that is why discussions with atheists are basically pointless. They ask for evidence but the only acceptable evidence is evidence which reinforces their own opinions, except they don't have opinions because they don't have beliefs on the matter.
I say you have an established belief about the existence of God. You say no I don't because I don't have a belief in God. I give you demonstrated evidence of how your representational language indicates you do have some sort of established belief.
Consider, by engaging at all in a debate concerning the issue you've of necessity established a belief. If not then you can't engage at all with theistic beliefs let alone make comments on the existence of "demons". How can an atheist state that they make no claims and have no belief upon which to stand concerning the issues and yet engage in debate? That's absurd. Atheists can't even claim there is no evidence if, as you say, atheists have no belief upon which to analyze any evidence - or lack thereof - by. And of course you've stated atheists make no claims so they couldn't even make the claim that no evidence has been presented. Your own rhetoric is irrational.
You give no counter arguments except for an unreasonable emotional condemnation of the discussion. That is unwarranted dismissal of my arguments without giving reason and is disrespectful and offensive. It would seem as if you simply dismiss those arguments which oppose your opinions that you find it hard to rebut.

What "observed phenomena such as that found in DNA" are you referring to that makes you think god(s) is involved?

I'm presuming your aware of the fact that human DNA isn't just a random combination of amino acids reacting to its environment in a fortuitously beneficial way for creating a human being. It is actually a remarkable system of information storage used by other entities in order for them to do their proper jobs in creating that human being. It is a code if you will for storing the blueprints of human existence.
"the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like" Richard Dawkins.
"DNA is like a computer program." Bill Gates
Biotechnology specialist Leroy Hood describes DNA similarly..."digital code."
DNA's coding isn't stand alone though...it requires a complex information-transmission and processing system and all geared towards functionally specified information use. Even experts in the field of biotechnology admit these systems give a remarkable "appearance" of design. And as we all know, nature doesn't design. But appearance isn't enough, one must analyze the actual information content in these systems, how they work, what information they contain and how it is used.
Why does science find it so difficult to "naturally" explain the origin of the information in DNA and other biomacromolecules in living cells?

Long story...very abbreviated,
Enter MIT scientist Claude Shannon developer of modern information theory...
States: The amount of information is equated with the amount of uncertainty that was reduced by a series of symbols or characters. The amount of information conveyed by an event or sequence of characters is inversely proportional to the probability of its occurrence.
In Shannon's theory, the more improbable an event or sequence, the more uncertainty it eliminates and thus the more information it conveys.
This kind of mathematical formulism - Shannon information - cannot detect whether a sequence of symbols conveyed meaning or performed a communication function - functional or specified information. Important to note.
But it turns out DNA contains both Shannon information - improbability information - AND specificity information or specified complexity.
"Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid [i.e., in the DNA] or of amino-acid residues in the protein." Francis Crick
Hence the quotes above about DNA being like a computer code.
Now I know we all like probability...its what makes the world go round har, har. For instance all our scientific "laws" are based on probabilities. Take gravity, its conceivable (allowed by possibility) that gravity could change the force it applies to matter tomorrow. However given our experiences, experiments etc. it is not a probably actionable possibility. No one in their right mind is going to jump off a building tomorrow thinking that at that precise time the force of gravity will become 1/100 of what it was and they will safely float down to the ground.
So, what is the probability that DNA would naturally accumulate not only the Shannon information but also specified complexity information?
Physicist Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues calculated, "vanishingly small...even on the scale of...billions of years."
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD University of Cambridge calculated that for even a single functional protein or corresponding functional gene to happen by chance alone..."of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance alone in a prebiotic environment stands at no better than a "vanishing small" 1 chance in 10^164, an inconceivably small probability."
Like jumping off that building and expecting gravity to change at that precise moment.
Keep in mind a single cell has not one but hundreds of specialized proteins.
There's more to the argument but that's the gist of it.

The "universal constants" are just the way we observe and describe the workings of the universe.

The universal constants aren't simply observations. They give specific information about how the universe works and that specificity which gives us the universe we have is collectively informationally related to probability like the DNA scenario above. Its eyebrow raising.

I really don't like when people try to tell me the that actual demonstrable evidence wouldn't convince me of something.

Just been my experience and projected opinion. Right or wrong.
A point I was trying to make was that there is no universally demonstrable evidence which because of the nature of the issues we are discussing points to a known cause. The cause remains unknown but hypothesized with evidence such as that presented above and since it currently remains unknown, the evidence is interpretably corelated. Anyone who doesn't want to believe wont because there remains a factor of faith.
Nobody likes to be critiqued. But perhaps it would be more productive to correct the other persons opinion in such cases and present demonstrable reasons why they are wrong. Hmmm, is that possible? Demonstrate on here how you truly feel? Or is that something we would have to take on faith that it is a true representation of reality?

If the evidence isn't good enough to conclude that some god exists, then the evidence isn't good enough to draw a conclusion.

Again, what is good enough evidence? Think about all the things you take for granted daily, accepting as true based on the most meager evidence or even total lack of personal evidential experience. From rumors about workmates to assumptions about medicines and the existence of molecules. What if the evidence presented is evidence we can't personally analyze?
Faith, you either have it or you don't. It begins in subjective feeling that may end in objective rejection. It seems you can't think your way into having faith but you certainly can think your way out of it which by itself isn't evidence that makes your faith wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because the definition doesn’t match what happened. So what’s your definition of a demon and what evidence would you be looking for to verify that exactly?

Sure it does. The article describes it as "anxiety and fainting."

 

[Trailblazer]

A little advice though. I don't think any amount of evidence on its own will convince you or any so called "non-believer" that God exists because the cause of that evidence will always remain hypothetical until that cause makes itself known.

That is a good way of putting it. No matter what evidence we present to non-believers we cannot prove that evidence came from God.

No matter how much evidence you present to a non-believer, it will never be proof of God, because evidence is not proof. Evidence only indicates that God exists and causes one to believe whereas proof would establish God's existence as a fact. What non-believers want is proof, but the only way we could ever have proof that God exists is if God showed up on earth and made Himself known. But how could we see God even if He showed up? Of course that is an impossibility, since God is spirit, so we could never see God even if His Spirit was all around us.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Sure it does. The article describes it as "anxiety and fainting."

You’ll have to provide the example because I don’t see anything close and was that the diagnosis of the doctors as well?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is a good way of putting it. No matter what evidence we present to non-believers we cannot prove that evidence came from God.

No matter how much evidence you present to a non-believer, it will never be proof of God, because evidence is not proof. Evidence only indicates that God exists and causes one to believe whereas proof would establish God's existence as a fact. What non-believers want is proof, but the only way we could ever have proof that God exists is if God showed up on earth and made Himself known. But how could we see God even if He showed up? Of course that is an impossibility, since God is spirit, so we could never see God even if His Spirit was all around us.

If god exists, and if said god exists as described, then said god would know exactly what evidence would convince each unbeliever of it's existence.