Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[SkepticThinker]

When one actually knows dozens, maybe hundreds of people that find help in their religion you really don't have any room for doubt.

Oh, anecdotes, cool. I know a bunch of people who were harmed by the religious beliefs pushed upon them. So, I wonder how we really get to the bottom of this. I don't think it's via anecdotal information. And let's not forget about the placebo effect either.

I happen to be in a situation right now where literally hundreds of people are praying for me... I don't even want to think of the despair my life would be without my faith.

I can think of at least one study in which people who knew they were being prayed for, fared worse than those weren't prayed for, or weren't aware that they were being prayed for.

"This study therefore showed that remote intercessory prayer did not improve outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In fact, the knowledge of being prayed for was associated with a slightly but significantly higher rate of postsurgical complications."

Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP): Study design and research methods - ScienceDirect

 

[SkepticThinker]

I remember you telling me about what happened to your father, and I'm deeply saddened to hear about what happened to him. I sympathize with your father, and it troubles me to hear his story and other stories similar to his and mine. I've had Christians tell me that God didn't answer my prayers for protection while I was growing up in an abusive home because I didn't have enough faith in God for him to save me or because I had unconfessed sins in my life. Keep in mind that as a young child, I cried out to God, pleading with him to save me from my adoptive mother and older brother's abuse and stop them from beating up on me. And years ago, I counseled with my pastor at the time, and after he had listened to me tell him about my life growing up in an abusive home, he told me that I'm a cursed soul. He said that it was obvious to him that God hated me and was punishing me for the sins of my biological parents, and apparently one of their gravest sins was having an affair, and I'm the result of that affair. I truly believed him because generational sins are biblical. It's written in the Bible that God punishes generations of families for the sins of their ancestors. He also told me that there was nothing I could do to change God's mind about me. Of course, I believed every word he said because I knew what the Bible taught about God hating Esau and how God cursed Cain. As a result, I was certain that I had received a curse from God and that he detested me. I'd like to reiterate that being a Christian was detrimental to my mental, emotional, and physical health. To be honest, renunciating my Christian faith was the best decision that I've ever made for my mental health and emotional well-being.

Oh dear, I just can't even ... That's disgusting, and I'm so sorry you had to go through that. This is the kind of disgusting attitude you get from uncritically believing in ancient fables.
I'm so happy for you that you're now in a much better place. Some people never get there and that's the saddest thing of all.

And thank you for your kind words.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, you did. You said people experiencing interaction with spirits, demons, etc., were “simply mistaken.”

That's not an outright dismissal. It's a fact of reality that people can be mistaken about the things they think they've seen or heard. Do you think people have been abducted by aliens? Well, a bunch of people certainly claim that they have.

That’s a polite way of denying their claims.

Not accepting or being convinced by a claim isn't the same thing as saying that the claim is wrong. Claims need to be supported with evidence.

"I saw a ghost" doesn't really tell us much of anything. It's just a claim. What is a ghost? How did you determine it was a ghost? How can it be demonstrated to anyone else?

Especially given what we already know about the human brain and it's tendency toward seeking out patterns. Which is the reason we see faces in the shadows hat aren't actually there, for instance. I used to see all kinds of monsters in the corner of my room when I was a child. That doesn't mean there were actual monsters in the corners of my room. It was only my perception of the way the little bit of light was falling on the stuff piled in the corner of my room. But if you asked me, I would tell you there were monsters there.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, you did. You said people experiencing interaction with spirits, demons, etc., were “simply mistaken.”

That’s a polite way of denying their claims.

For the record, @SkepticThinker is correct in stating that people can be mistaken about the things they think they've seen or heard. I know that this happens more often than someone who doesn't have my mediumship abilities seeing a real human spirit or other entity in a haunted location. Most people's senses are heightened during paranormal investigations, and many expect to see spirits; thus, the idea of seeing spirits is already planted in their minds, opening them up to being misled about what they see or hear. The person's mind will then play tricks on them, and what they think they saw or heard can be debunked, either by me or by someone else. As a psychic medium and sensitive, I have the advantage of knowing whether a human spirit or more than one human spirit is present at any given time. And, while I never openly state that I'm a psychic medium, it does make it easier for me to convince the other person, as well as others present, that what they thought they saw or heard wasn't paranormal and had a natural explanation.

As an experienced paranormal investigator, I believe that it is important to rule out any natural explanations for an unusual event that appears to be paranormal at first. It's important to make a concentrated effort to debunk the incident and properly document it using ghost-hunting equipment in order to establish that the incident was indeed paranormal. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to ensure that any evidence of the paranormal is genuine so that skeptics can't rationally refute it. As I often say, "seeing is believing."

A professional paranormal investigator and researcher won't immediately assume that an unexplained and unusual occurrence is paranormal. An expert paranormal investigator will first make an effort to disprove the phenomenon, and if that fails, he or she will ask the spirits to repeat the incident so that it may be accurately recorded using specialized ghost-hunting equipment. An expert paranormal investigator will conduct an extensive, comprehensive investigation with their equipment to either prove or disprove the phenomenon, and they will seek the assistance of other seasoned investigators to verify their evidence. A professional paranormal investigator may also seek the assistance of a trusted psychic medium or a sensitive while investigating a known haunted location.

I've been investigating and researching the paranormal for the past 15 years, and despite being a psychic medium and a sensitive, I don't always assume that an unusual occurrence, such as lights flickering or a loud bang, is paranormal. Even if I sense the presence of a spirit, I don't always assume that an unusual occurrence is paranormal. However, as a medium, I also have the psychic ability to see and hear spirits, so if the unusual occurrence is caused by a spirit, I am immediately aware of it. Despite the fact that I am a medium, I make every effort to adequately document the incident with my ghost-hunting equipment to prove that it was paranormal.

As an experienced paranormal investigator, I will not leave my paranormal evidence (recorded videos and pictures of spirits, EVP recordings) wide open for skeptics to harshly rip apart. In fact, I'm my own worst critic when it comes to the potential evidence of the paranormal that I collect, because my objective when analyzing the evidence is to try and debunk it so that I may authenticate it.

I also allow other seasoned investigators and even skeptics that I know and trust to thoroughly analyze the potential evidence of the paranormal that I collect during an investigation. I never take any pictures I take or videos I record at face value, despite my abilities relating to the paranormal. If I'm conducting an EVP session, then I make sure that the people around me hear what I hear via the Spirit Box. I've asked the other people around me, "What did you hear?" rather than repeating what I heard myself. I could tell them that I audibly heard the spirits speaking directly to me because of my abilities, but that isn't sufficient evidence for the skeptics in the crowd. If I show other people the pictures I've taken at a haunted location, I don't tell them what I see but rather ask them what they see. I don't try to influence how other people interpret my evidence. In addition, before I enter a specific location that is believed to be haunted, I'll ask the people I'm with not to tell me anything about the place or any experiences they have had there. I don't want to be influenced. I prefer to go into a location with a clear mind so that I can be certain that what I sense as a medium in the area is real.

There aren't many people that I know in real life who are aware of my psychic mediumship abilities, but there are other paranormal investigators I know and trust who are. If one of them asks me to use my psychic medium abilities at a haunted location, I'll remind them that I don't want to know anything about their personal experiences there. If the location is a house, a building, another type of structure, or a public business, I don't want to know anything about the current or previous owners or the property's history. If I'm given a personal object to hold so that I can possibly connect with a spirit, then I will make it clear that I don't want to know anything about the person who owned that object before they passed away. It's important to me that I have a clear mind before doing a reading for another person or when I'm investigating a well-known or suspected haunted location. I want to be sure that my reading is correct and hasn't been affected by any suggestions or information I've received from other paranormal investigators or anyone else in the room. I can't speak for other mediums, but that's what I do when I'm asked to give a reading or when I'm asked to use my abilities during a paranormal investigation. We, meaning psychic mediums, are all different, and most of us, if not all, have our own unique methods of interacting with spirits. Most of us have fine-tuned our abilities in such a way that we can control them better.

After explaining all of that, I would like to conclude my post by saying that as a medium, I'm aware of paranormal occurrences that can't be verified by ghost-hunting equipment, rationally explained by science, or legitimately explained away by religious dogma that adamantly opposes belief that the spirits of the dead can communicate with and interact with the living. Personally, I believe that there are supernatural occurrences that happen in the world that brazenly defy scientific explanation and even religious explanation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

We're not talking about "happiness."

Really? Because if a person is truly happy, he's not going to need therapy, or be depressed by mental issues.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Oh, anecdotes, cool. I know a bunch of people who were harmed by the religious beliefs pushed upon them. So, I wonder how we really get to the bottom of this. I don't think it's via anecdotal information. And let's not forget about the placebo effect either.


I can think of at least one study in which people who knew they were being prayed for, fared worse than those weren't prayed for, or weren't aware that they were being prayed for.

"This study therefore showed that remote intercessory prayer did not improve outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In fact, the knowledge of being prayed for was associated with a slightly but significantly higher rate of postsurgical complications."

Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP): Study design and research methods - ScienceDirect

I don't put my stock in " studies".
BTW why diss the placebo effect?
It's real change. It an illustration of how our minds belief can change our physical reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't put my stock in " studies".
BTW why diss the placebo effect?
It's real change. It an illustration of how our minds belief can change our physical reality.

I agree. I think the placebo effect has been established.

I wonder how we know that?

Oh yeah. Studies.

Don't you just love irony.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I agree. I think the placebo effect has been established.

I wonder how we know that?

Oh yeah. Studies.

Don't you just love irony.

I didn't say every study is worthless. But I don't place my faith in men's limited knowledge.

We still understand so little about cause when it comes to our health.
Why do some people get cancer when they have lived a healthy lifestyle? Why can another person neglect his health and do ok?
The more we discover, the the more we realize how much we don't know.
My body literally formed new veins to bypass one that was blocked. If they can figure that out bypass surgery could be a thing of the past.

 

[setarcos]

Nope. That's just how the rules of logic and reason work.

I wish you wouldn't start off with a negative. It risks coloring the rest of our conversation.
Logic and reason are tools of conscious thought and that is all. Where logic has no biases, makes no assumptions, nor draws unproven conclusions, reason on the other hand may but not without warrant. There is no logical rule that says that if a proposition cannot be proven true then it must be false. And some things may be reasonably questioned or presumed true without proof. You may be trying to be reasonable in your assumptions but you are not being logical.

Otherwise, we'd be stuck believing in all kinds of things that aren't true, and I'm not interested in that.

Your overtaxing your belief in what can be proven true by equating it with belief in what might be possibly true . The person who's had the experience is a believer and generally ceases to think further on its possibility. The person who hasn't should be - in the absence of disbelief by logical proof - a considerer of its possibility.
We all believe hundreds of things daily without them being proven. Usually because we are being reasonable but not necessarily logical.

Also, atheism isn't a claim. It contains no claims within in. It's just a lack of belief in god(s).

Yeah that's what atheists will tell you but start a discussion with them and you'll soon find just how many claims they insist on being true. Like God doesn't exist for one. Not simply, "I don't know if God exists." but a definitive claim that it doesn't. Not too many atheist's I've met are comfortable with even allowing "Its possible that God exists."
A mere lack of belief in something leaves open the consideration of the possibility of that thing. Thought continues concerning the thing in question. Once you believe something you consider that thing to be true to reality and cease further rumination on its possibility. Atheists don't simply lack belief in, by definition they do not believe - the logical antithesis of believing- in an existent God or gods.
I fear your going to drag us down a hole of equivocation.
I do not believe Gods exist is the same as saying I believe that no Gods exist.

atheist
[ ey-thee-ist ]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
disbelief
[ dis-bi-leef ]
noun
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

Consider: Is not believing the opposite of believing? And if one believes do you not consider the thing believed to be true? So the thing not believed is considered to be not true. If the thing believed is that God exists is true then its opposite is that God exists is false and the former claim is not believed. That is an antithesis claim against what is believed and it is claimed by Atheists.

Only if you don't understand how logic and reason work. Not accepting a claim for lack of evidence isn't the same thing as saying that the claim is false or has been disproven.

Logic and reasoning? Wow a mystery to me.
Lets dispense with the minutia of our semantics. If by saying, not accepting a claim, you mean not establishing a belief in that claim as to whether it is true OR false but may be possible then we are in agreement.

"do you believe the number of gumballs is an odd number?"
And you respond, "No" because you don't know.

Now lets analyze your giant jar of gumballs...
While saying no to a forced belief you cannot verify may be a semantic short cut to what you might mean - I cannot formulate a belief because I do not know and I cannot verify either way. - that only works if both debaters understand the intent of the information, which is to deny that you can formulate any belief not that you deny a particular belief can or may be true. Such linguistic short cuts can and has caused a lot of semantic confusion and aren't logical.
Logically, saying no to a belief is a definitive which denies what that belief is defined by. That is, there is an odd number in the jar.
Logically, in a tautological case where there is only two possibilities, odd or even, odd or not odd, even or not even, etc. - Saying no instead of I don't know, I cannot discount the possibility or better still, I have not formulated a belief - to the belief that there is an odd number indicates a belief in its antithesis which is, there is an even number. A reasonable person may figure out what you meant but you are not using logic to answer the way you did.

Does that then mean you are making the claim that the number of gumballs is even

Logically, yes. As I've demonstrated.

In other words, your lack belief in the amount of gumballs being odd isn't a claim that the number of gum balls is even.

Like I said, logically when it comes to tautological decisions, making a definitive negative comment on a belief in a particular choice semantically implies a belief in its antithesis. Logic doesn't care if its your belief your denying having or someone else's, logic doesn't care if you mean you haven't formulated a belief yet. Logic only acts on definitive statements. No, I don't believe there is an odd number of beans in the jar is a definitive statement. If it is logical its antithesis is implied. If the statement isn't logical then you run the risk of semantic confusion. For example: Your answer implies that you don't think the number is odd because you don't know if the number is odd or even. That is illogical.
Say you were presumed the most meteorologically knowledgeable person in the house and were asked if you thought it was raining outside by someone who was going outside and wanted to know if they should take an umbrella - curtains drawn, no one knows for sure. Your response is : No, I don't believe it is raining outside. Do you think that person will take the umbrella? How about if you said, No, I lack belief that it is raining outside. Would the results be different? The presumptions of what you meant? Do you think that person should know that you meant you don't know if its raining outside and shouldn't be relied upon for a reasonable answer because you said you lacked belief that it was? Or is it more reasonable to assume that your statement semantically implied you thought it wasn't raining?
Is there a meaningful semantic difference between the statements "I don't believe you are telling the truth." and " I believe you are lying." ? Do they both not mean that you think that person is a lier?

With no evidence presented to us indicating either way, we can't decide anything about the number of gumballs in the jar. Until we count them or something.

We can't decide specific answers concerning specific beliefs. Odd or even. One thing we can decide to believe in is specific possibilities though. The number of beans must be odd or even.
Possible or not possible. That is the tautology we are logically dealing with in this thread. To be possible requires no proof. To be impossible on the other hand does. That is one of the most important scientific principals.
Enough for now...these posts are getting too long. But interesting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't say every study is worthless.

It could easily be interpreted that way given your use of the plural.

But I don't place my faith in men's limited knowledge.

Sure you do. Everyone does. You, I and the rest of humanity place their faith in other people all the time. We just don't think about it often.

We still understand so little about cause when it comes to our health.

We do understand many things despite our greater ignorance. Studying helps us fill in those gaps of our ignorance. We are never going to know everything, but that shouldn't stop us from learning what we can and finding ways to apply that knowledge rationally.

Why do some people get cancer when they have lived a healthy lifestyle? Why can another person neglect his health and do ok?

That observation alone tells me that some cancers are independent of health and lifestyle choice. That other factors are present and not obviously apparent. Studies help us to find out these questions. People selling magnets or rejecting successful medical procedures out of some personal sense of paranoia or personal belief help us find nothing.

The more we discover, the the more we realize how much we don't know.

This has always been and will remain so. But that shouldn't stop us from looking and learning. It is what drives our interest in studying the world around us and all that are in it. However, that ignorance and the tools to combat it are not the problem. It is people that think they know for no obvious reason, but don't really know. Yet this does not stop them from spreading their "knowledge". We see it in the trivial that does not matter, to the significant in science, economics, politics, culture...where it is made to increasingly matter using the tools that are the opposite of those used in "studies".

My body literally formed new veins to bypass one that was blocked. If they can figure that out bypass surgery could be a thing of the past.

I'm glad to hear. The body can do amazing things in response to threats or problems. Finding answers to how angiogenesis, limb regrowth, cancer abatement and a host of other conditions requires study in both the source and the application of basic knowledge discovered from that study. Not something the average person with basic or limited education can't learn about, but doesn't seem all that interested in when it comes to the facts.

I suppose in this area, I don't have much faith in people at times.

 

[nPeace]

Is there any evidence of Dark Matter, Dark Energy?
I would be interested in how many here would say no.
Yet, those who say yes, cannot provide one shred of 'physical' evidence.

Is there any evidence the sun is 93 million miles from the earth?
I would be interested in how many here would say no.
Yet, those who say yes, cannot provide one shred of 'physical' evidence.

Is there any evidence that gravity is acting on objects in space?
I would be interested in how many here would say no.
Yet, those who say yes, cannot provide one shred of 'physical' evidence.

...there are no absolute proofs of these theories … only demonstrations that they are the best and simplest models that account for the known facts of Nature and have predictive utility.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...ablished-theory-like-gravity/?sh=1f7c093f4cd7

There is no way to absolutely rule out the idea that gravity is caused by invisible, insubstantial pixies that have an obsession with everything having to be as close together as possible. It’s just that this model postulates something in addition to what we observe (the pixies) that is not currently needed… and we have this thing called “Occam’s Razor”.


The point is, something does not need to e 'physical' to exist, and the evidence does not need to e 'physical'. The effects however, can be detected with our senses, which are not always by physical contact.
For example, can we feel magnetism?

Demons as descried in the Bible, are described as spirit - not physical. So they are not detected with our physical senses.
The effects though, can be discerned.

Scientists, telling us that Dark Matter, and Dark Energy exist, are to me like Bible writers telling me that God is spirit, and he uses holy spirit to perform powerful works, including creation. They are like Bible writers saying, "Hey. God created powerful spirit beings, that are invisible, and unaffected by any physical matter... we can only detect their presence through their effect on physical things.

That sounds familiar, doesn't it.
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.

Do we hear anyone arguing with CERN? "What? Invisible? Infer? Get out of here."?
No. We don't hear anyone on here making that argument. Well, at least not that I heard. Not sure if @Eddi did. I never heard. So anyone who has would have to speak up, so that we know.

With Dark Matter, and Demons though, can the scientist of today compare to the Bible writers?
1. Bible writers were eyewitnesses. Their data is a Primary Source of Evidence, based on direct observable evidence - not circumstantial.
2. They wrote of real events which were confirmed by Secondary Sources of Evidence.
3. Their evidence can be verified... even demonstrated.
Oh dear. I miss the list and indentation features on RF already. New features always tend to take away good features.

We cannot be so sure of what scientist say.

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."

What do you believe?

Here are some pieces of evidence for Demons, which I accept.
1. Jesus said it. Yes. Jesus is more reliable than any scientist, on this matter. He identified their existence, and their activities.
2. The Bible said it. The Bible is more reliable than any scientist... on this matter. The Bible explains their origin, and activities.
3. The above two sources are verified by the activity we see present in the world, along with the Bible's trustworthy record.

Of course, I cannot prove everything that Demons are behind, but I infer that there are animal and demonic behaviors which are not carried out by "normal" human beings.
Aside from these, evidence the Bible is the inspired word of God, gives me no reason to doubt that Demons exist, and of course since they do not want people to be aware of this, I don't expect the demons to show up at people's door, and give them convincing proof of their existence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have never seen demons. I don't know of any evidence that can be used to infer the existence of demons that isn't described by better, more rational explanations. Contemporary and historical claims of demons appear to be just that, claims and not evidence.

Anyone claiming that demons exist needs to tell me how they know this so that I can see the evidence that tells them it is demons too and not just wishful thinking and imagination.

We can measure gravity, and the distance between the sun and stars, we can infer dark matter and energy from the activity of indirect evidence, but nothing I know of provides proof of demons or provides inference that doesn't have a more rational explanation involving ordinary phenomena.

 

[Kenny]

Why would I have to go to India, are there no demons in Australia?

Probably locked up in an insane asylum. Not so in India (most of the time)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

(Sorry I’m late to reply)

I will say that years of personal experience as a psychic medium have taught me that what the Bible teaches about the afterlife and what it claims will happen to people after they die are demonstrably false and extremely misleading.

I know, believe me. And you’re proving my point, in this regard, that the goal of these entities is to dissuade — and mislead — people from believing that the Bible teaches the truth about the dead. They’ve got you believing, based on your own genuine experiences, that the Bible is wrong.
But these entities don’t reveal themselves to just anybody, do they? No. In fact, they’re extremely enigmatic & unpredictable.

Why?

For the very reason I gave to @danieldemol : if they were to openly manifest as dead loved ones or to reveal themselves as anything else to everyone, these invisible entities might scare some people into searching for their spiritual side, and find Jehovah. That’s exactly what these beings don’t want… people to search for our Creator Jehovah, and find Him, “although He is not far off from each one of us (Acts of the Apostles 17:27)”.
So they’re content to be ambiguous.
There are other ways they are “misleading / deceiving (Revelation 12:9)”: through secular and other means, like religion. In fact, religious thought is the main way. Even in Christendom. — Matthew 7:21-23

In posting on this thread, I sort of wanted to use your Username & bring you into this, but I was relegating these events to a demonic source. and I didn’t want to upset you. Plus, I know you don’t like to debate this controversial issue, so I was reluctant & didn’t want to unnecessarily bring you into the thread.

But now I’m glad that you’ve replied to my post on your own.

If you’ll notice in my first post on this thread, I started by saying that I didn’t want to make anyone mad.

I know you are having genuine experiences. I’m no skeptic, in this regard!

But the evidence fits what I’ve been taught, that these beings are unpredictable, and will mislead any way they can! Would it really be that difficult for highly intelligent, invisible beings, working together, to pretend to be something they’re not? How would you know?

For example, one goal they have is to discredit the Bible. And what are many professed Christians taught the Bible says?

1) That the afterlife is either “Hellfire”, or “Heaven.” The Catholics, despite no Scriptural support, add a “purgatory.”
2) A smaller group of professed Christians, believe that “the dead know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5); that the dead, for now, are “asleep in the ground of dust” — Daniel 12:2.

But your experiences show none of that, do they? (Maybe the ‘Purgatory’ part is similar.) So of course you think the Bible is wrong, no matter what is taught. You & other genuine paranormal researchers are dealing with highly intelligent creatures, who’ve had centuries of practice in misleading humans! These beings are the “angels that sinned (2 Peter 2:4)”, the angels who “forsook their proper dwelling place (Jude 1:6)”. They are ‘deceptive’. — Revelation 12 9,12

But again, if these entities whom you have experiences with, who tell you that they are dead humans… why don’t they let everyone know? Especially their supposed loved ones?

Because of their goal I stated earlier in this post, where I linked danieldemol : they don’t want to influence anyone, atheists or otherwise, where it might backfire against them!

And I don't just make this claim flippantly without backing it up.

Again, I understand. You are not one of the “simply mistaken” ones, in this regard, as @SkepticThinker stated concerning Winston Churchill & others. They had genuine experiences, as you do now.

I do, however, believe that these beings you interact with, are devious imposters…. They love the confusion the world is in, and the disunity that we see worldwide.

I read where you mentioned your contact with those claiming to be humans souls…
Did you know the Bible is consistent in its teaching that the soul is not immortal?
In the following Scriptures, where most translations word it “the dead”, “a dead body”, “a dead person”, or “a corpse”, the actual phase is “dead soul”:
Leviticus 19:28
Leviticus 21:1
Leviticus 21:11
Leviticus 22:4
Numbers 5:2
Numbers 6:6
Etc….
Look it up.

The truth is there….these wicked & devious angels have just influenced the twisting of God’s Word. In numerous other topics the Bible discusses, also.

I do wish you well.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

(Sorry I’m late to reply)


I know, believe me. And you’re proving my point, in this regard, that the goal of these entities is to dissuade — and mislead — people from believing that the Bible teaches the truth about the dead. They’ve got you believing, based on your own genuine experiences, that the Bible is wrong.
But these entities don’t reveal themselves to just anybody, do they? No. In fact, they’re extremely enigmatic & unpredictable.

Why?

For the very reason I gave to @danieldemol : if they were to openly manifest as dead loved ones or to reveal themselves as anything else to everyone, these invisible entities might scare some people into searching for their spiritual side, and find Jehovah. That’s exactly what these beings don’t want… people to search for our Creator Jehovah, and find Him, “although He is not far off from each one of us (Acts of the Apostles 17:27)”.
So they’re content to be ambiguous.
There are other ways they are “misleading / deceiving (Revelation 12:9)”: through secular and other means, like religion. In fact, religious thought is the main way. Even in Christendom. — Matthew 7:21-23

In posting on this thread, I sort of wanted to use your Username & bring you into this, but I was relegating these events to a demonic source. and I didn’t want to upset you. Plus, I know you don’t like to debate this controversial issue, so I was reluctant & didn’t want to unnecessarily bring you into the thread.

But now I’m glad that you’ve replied to my post on your own.

If you’ll notice in my first post on this thread, I started by saying that I didn’t want to make anyone mad.

I know you are having genuine experiences. I’m no skeptic, in this regard!

But the evidence fits what I’ve been taught, that these beings are unpredictable, and will mislead any way they can! Would it really be that difficult for highly intelligent, invisible beings, working together, to pretend to be something they’re not? How would you know?

For example, one goal they have is to discredit the Bible. And what are many professed Christians taught the Bible says?

1) That the afterlife is either “Hellfire”, or “Heaven.” The Catholics, despite no Scriptural support, add a “purgatory.”
2) A smaller group of professed Christians, believe that “the dead know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5); that the dead, for now, are “asleep in the ground of dust” — Daniel 12:2.

But your experiences show none of that, do they? (Maybe the ‘Purgatory’ part is similar.) So of course you think the Bible is wrong, no matter what is taught. You & other genuine paranormal researchers are dealing with highly intelligent creatures, who’ve had centuries of practice in misleading humans! These beings are the “angels that sinned (2 Peter 2:4)”, the angels who “forsook their proper dwelling place (Jude 1:6)”. They are ‘deceptive’. — Revelation 12 9,12

But again, if these entities whom you have experiences with, who tell you that they are dead humans… why don’t they let everyone know? Especially their supposed loved ones?

Because of their goal I stated earlier in this post, where I linked danieldemol : they don’t want to influence anyone, atheists or otherwise, where it might backfire against them!

Again, I understand. You are not one of the “simply mistaken” ones, in this regard, as @SkepticThinker stated concerning Winston Churchill & others. They had genuine experiences, as you do now.

I do, however, believe that these beings you interact with, are devious imposters…. They love the confusion the world is in, and the disunity that we see worldwide.

I read where you mentioned your contact with those claiming to be humans souls…
Did you know the Bible is consistent in its teaching that the soul is not immortal?
In the following Scriptures, where most translations word it “the dead”, “a dead body”, “a dead person”, or “a corpse”, the actual phase is “dead soul”:
Leviticus 19:28
Leviticus 21:1
Leviticus 21:11
Leviticus 22:4
Numbers 5:2
Numbers 6:6
Etc….
Look it up.

The truth is there….these wicked & devious angels have just influenced the twisting of God’s Word. In numerous other topics the Bible discusses, also.

I do wish you well.

You are correct that I will not argue or debate with you or others about what I believe about the afterlife or my personal experiences as a psychic medium. I would however like to point out that human spirits and other entities do not reveal themselves to everyone for two reasons: first, not everyone has the ability to tap into their sixth sense as psychic mediums do, and second, not everyone is open to seeing or hearing human spirits and other entities because most people were taught as children not to believe in such things, so they outright dismiss the possibility as either being their imagination or something wrong with their mind. Also, there's still somewhat of a negative stigma attached to believing in ghosts (spirits interacting with and communicating with the living) or in the paranormal in general, but this stigma isn't as prevalent in society as it used to be, as I explained awhile back in another thread here.

As far as any Christians objecting to my psychic mediumship abilities, I don't pay it any mind because while some Christians have told me that my psychic mediumship abilities aren't real or that I'm communicating with demons rather than actual human spirits, other Christians have told me that my psychic mediumship abilities are a gift from God and that I should use them for his glory. The truth is that Christians all read from the same Bible, but they always disagree about what happens after we die. Most Christians believe that they will go to heaven right after death, but others believe that human spirits will sleep in the grave and be resurrected in the last days. Of course, I never expect a straight answer whenever I ask a Christian or a group of Christians to tell me what the Bible teaches about the afterlife or any other theological subject for that matter. The truth is that the majority of Christians read the Bible and interpret it to suit themselves, frequently contradicting other Christians. In fact, almost every Christian I've ever met in my life believes that their biblical interpretation is correct, that their church alone holds the absolute truth about what the Bible actually teaches, and that all other Christians are wrong in their biblical interpretation and doctrines. Personally, I don't have any reason to believe what any Christian claims about the Bible because their personal claims often contradict other Christians. I don't have a reason to believe any of their claims since they can't ever agree among themselves about the Bible.

And finally, if you don't want to believe in psychic mediumship or that there are earthbound human spirits, then that's your decision, and it doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I know what my experiences as a psychic medium (as well as those of other mediums) have been, and I don't care if Christians or other skeptics believe me or not. As I've said before, any religious objections to my psychic medium abilities or any doubt about whether they are real or not won't change the reality that I've lived with these abilities all my life, and I refuse to suppress them again in fear of what other people will think. As far as I'm concerned, people can accept or reject what I say about my personal experiences as a medium in communication with spirits. It's entirely their decision. I've long since realized that it serves no purpose for me to debate the paranormal with skeptics. I'm not on RF to convince skeptics that psychic mediumship is real or that there are earthbound human spirits all around us. I'm here to share my experiences, as I did in my previous post in this thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really? Because if a person is truly happy, he's not going to need therapy, or be depressed by mental issues.

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand psychology and shouldn't be offering psychological advice.
Apparently you aren't aware of bipolar disorder or anxiety disorders.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't put my stock in " studies".

There's your first mistake. You apparently don't understand how studies work either or why they're infinitesimally more useful than anecdotes.

BTW why diss the placebo effect?

Because it doesn't actually help in the long-term. It's a trick.

It's real change. It an illustration of how our minds belief can change our physical reality.

What's "real change?"
Our mind beliefs can change our physical reality. You know how I know that? Because I have anxiety disorder where my mind causes my body to express physical distress. You know how I overcame that? Not from sitting around having people pray for me. From actually putting in some work in therapy that has been demonstrated to be effective not just for one guy I know, but for a statistically significant number of people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't say every study is worthless. But I don't place my faith in men's limited knowledge.

We still understand so little about cause when it comes to our health.
Why do some people get cancer when they have lived a healthy lifestyle? Why can another person neglect his health and do ok?
The more we discover, the the more we realize how much we don't know.
My body literally formed new veins to bypass one that was blocked. If they can figure that out bypass surgery could be a thing of the past.

It's worse than that. You place your faith in your own limited knowledge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I wish you wouldn't start off with a negative. It risks coloring the rest of our conversation.

Then don't say things to which I have to reply negatively, I guess.

Logic and reason are tools of conscious thought and that is all. Where logic has no biases, makes no assumptions, nor draws unproven conclusions, reason on the other hand may but not without warrant. There is no logical rule that says that if a proposition cannot be proven true then it must be false. And some things may be reasonably questioned or presumed true without proof. You may be trying to be reasonable in your assumptions but you are not being logical.

Again, I didn't claim anywhere that if a "proposition cannot be proven true then it must be false."
In fact, I think I went out of my way to explain how that is not the case.

Your overtaxing your belief in what can be proven true by equating it with belief in what might be possibly true . The person who's had the experience is a believer and generally ceases to think further on its possibility. The person who hasn't should be - in the absence of disbelief by logical proof - a considerer of its possibility.
We all believe hundreds of things daily without them being proven. Usually because we are being reasonable but not necessarily logical.


Yeah that's what atheists will tell you but start a discussion with them and you'll soon find just how many claims they insist on being true. Like God doesn't exist for one. Not simply, "I don't know if God exists." but a definitive claim that it doesn't. Not too many atheist's I've met are comfortable with even allowing "Its possible that God exists."
A mere lack of belief in something leaves open the consideration of the possibility of that thing. Thought continues concerning the thing in question. Once you believe something you consider that thing to be true to reality and cease further rumination on its possibility. Atheists don't simply lack belief in, by definition they do not believe - the logical antithesis of believing- in an existent God or gods.
I fear your going to drag us down a hole of equivocation.
I do not believe Gods exist is the same as saying I believe that no Gods exist.

I don't need to be told what you think that atheists think. I just told you what atheism is. I've never said "God doesn't exist" and I don't find a lot of atheists who do. I see a lot of religious believers claiming that about us though. But you're not talking to other atheists. You're talking to me, and responding to the things I'm saying. And I haven't claimed anywhere that "no god exists."

atheist
[ ey-thee-ist ]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
disbelief
[ dis-bi-leef ]
noun
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

Consider: Is not believing the opposite of believing? And if one believes do you not consider the thing believed to be true? So the thing not believed is considered to be not true. If the thing believed is that God exists is true then its opposite is that God exists is false and the former claim is not believed. That is an antithesis claim against what is believed and it is claimed by Atheists.

No. Did I not make this clear with the gumball analogy?

I haven't made any anti-theist claims. So again, let's stick to the discussion at hand and not some made-up one.

Logic and reasoning? Wow a mystery to me.
Lets dispense with the minutia of our semantics. If by saying, not accepting a claim, you mean not establishing a belief in that claim as to whether it is true OR false but may be possible then we are in agreement.

It's not minutiae. It's something I really need you to understand.

Now lets analyze your giant jar of gumballs...
While saying no to a forced belief you cannot verify may be a semantic short cut to what you might mean - I cannot formulate a belief because I do not know and I cannot verify either way. - that only works if both debaters understand the intent of the information, which is to deny that you can formulate any belief not that you deny a particular belief can or may be true. Such linguistic short cuts can and has caused a lot of semantic confusion and aren't logical.

Boy, oh, boy talk about semantic quibbles. You seem to have missed the entire point of the analogy by getting all bogged down with this minutiae.

Logically, saying no to a belief is a definitive which denies what that belief is defined by. That is, there is an odd number in the jar.
Logically, in a tautological case where there is only two possibilities, odd or even, odd or not odd, even or not even, etc. - Saying no instead of I don't know, I cannot discount the possibility or better still, I have not formulated a belief - to the belief that there is an odd number indicates a belief in its antithesis which is, there is an even number. A reasonable person may figure out what you meant but you are not using logic to answer the way you did.

Logically, yes. As I've demonstrated.

Saying "NO" when I ask you if you think the number of gumballs is even, doesn't mean you believe that the amount of gum balls is an odd number. There aren't only two possibilities. Rather, there are three. Yes, no, and I don't know.

Like I said, logically when it comes to tautological decisions, making a definitive negative comment on a belief in a particular choice semantically implies a belief in its antithesis. Logic doesn't care if its your belief your denying having or someone else's, logic doesn't care if you mean you haven't formulated a belief yet. Logic only acts on definitive statements. No, I don't believe there is an odd number of beans in the jar is a definitive statement. If it is logical its antithesis is implied. If the statement isn't logical then you run the risk of semantic confusion. For example: Your answer implies that you don't think the number is odd because you don't know if the number is odd or even. That is illogical.

What would be illogical would be to claim that you know the number of gumballs in the jar when you don't.

"I don't believe the number of gumballs is even" Is not a definitive statement. "The number of gumballs is even" is a definitive statement.

Say you were presumed the most meteorologically knowledgeable person in the house and were asked if you thought it was raining outside by someone who was going outside and wanted to know if they should take an umbrella - curtains drawn, no one knows for sure. Your response is : No, I don't believe it is raining outside. Do you think that person will take the umbrella? How about if you said, No, I lack belief that it is raining outside. Would the results be different? The presumptions of what you meant? Do you think that person should know that you meant you don't know if its raining outside and shouldn't be relied upon for a reasonable answer because you said you lacked belief that it was? Or is it more reasonable to assume that your statement semantically implied you thought it wasn't raining?
Is there a meaningful semantic difference between the statements "I don't believe you are telling the truth." and " I believe you are lying." ? Do they both not mean that you think that person is a lier?

Belief and knowledge claims are different things.

We can't decide specific answers concerning specific beliefs. Odd or even. One thing we can decide to believe in is specific possibilities though. The number of beans must be odd or even.

Of course we can. We just need evidence. All we have to do is count the gumballs.

Possible or not possible. That is the tautology we are logically dealing with in this thread. To be possible requires no proof. To be impossible on the other hand does. That is one of the most important scientific principals.
Enough for now...these posts are getting too long. But interesting.

Anything is possible, theoretically. I'm concerned with what is probable.
Nobody has claimed anything is impossible here.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It's worse than that. You place your faith in your own limited knowledge.

No I put my faith in God. If he chooses to use men to heal I still give him the ultimate credit.
I'm living this, BTW, it's not theory.
Prayer works.
You want to attribute everything to chance...so be it.
And I have a very knowledgeable doctor who isn't afraid to admit that they don't understand everything.