Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[Left Coast]

If you have a level of science education that is so great then please do answer questions to those who may not have such a high education as you, in a clear and coherent way. Thank you. I've noticed that people say things in terms that the lay person may not understand and then tell them (sometimes) that they should get an education. That's almost like the religious leaders that put down a young man who Jesus healed because he didn't know as much as they did.

I didn't say I had a level of education that was so great. There are several members around here who have higher education than I do in the relevant fields for this discussion.

But I do notice those that do are never creationists.

You and I have discussed this before. If you want to understand higher level discussions, you need some amount of education to get the basics down first. This applies to basically every professional field: law, physics, medicine, engineering, music, psychology, philosophy. I'm sorry that you don't like that fact, but it is what it is. People dedicate their lives and professional careers to actually understanding and practicing these disciplines, and the fact that you can't track their conversations because you have no higher than high school education and don't work in those fields is not their fault. Nor are you equally equipped to have a competent conversation about that topic as they are. That isn't a dig at you. You could become more educated about these things if you chose. It's just how it is.

 

[nPeace]

Do you not understand logic? It's impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist, for example, it's nonsensical. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. You say demons exist. Provide objective, verifiable evidence for it. It's on you, not me.

Wait a minute. Am I speaking Russian?
I posted the evidence. You claimed I did not.
The burden of proof lies with you, to provide the evidence for that claim. Not me.

 

[Orbit]

Wait a minute. Am I speaking Russian?
I posted the evidence. You claimed I did not.
The burden of proof lies with you, to provide the evidence for that claim. Not me.

No, you did not post any evidence. I think you don't know what evidence is.

 

[nPeace]

No, you did not post any evidence. I think you don't know what evidence is.

It's clearly evident that you and folks alike are just content to make false accusations and claims.
That is equivalent to making useless post. Why I am responding is because you like to have the last word, making erroneous claims, and I am not letting you have that.

Let me save myself wasting time with you.
Direct question.

Someone stole your car.
The police arrive on the scene.
They conduct an investigation.
They ask for persons who witnessed anything.
I told the police that I saw the whole thing. I identified the thief - what she did; what she wore; her build.
Does the police report include my witness account as a piece of evidence?

 

[setarcos]

Arguing with atheists is pointless because they don't recognize that not believing something isn't a belief?

That's not at all what I said or implied. You can't ask for meaningful evidence before you believe anything if you have no beliefs with which to critique that evidence. Which begs the question, what do atheists stand for if they believe nothing and make no claims? You can't say theists are wrong because that would be a belief and you can't say there is no evidence because you'd be making a claim which you said atheists don't make. THATS logic.

Acceptable evidence to me is evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the claim.

First off, one would have to believe they knew what veracity the claim was making. Second, based on the first, one would have to believe they knew how to formulate a counter argument to the veracity of that claim if one wanted to meaningfully engage at all with those that made that claim. Before you know it atheists are throwing beliefs all over the place concerning the claim. Make sense?

which is pretty much how everyone goes about it, when it comes to regular claims, but believers throw that out the window for some reason and claim that that type of evidence doesn't work for god(s) and that we have to throw everything we know about evidence out the window and just believe in old fables anyway. Because ... faith.

Not exactly. Christianity and its scriptures have probably been the most critiqued, argued over, and analyzed beliefs and writings on earth. Evidence is not lacking. Historical, philological, archeological, philosophical, testimonial, ethnological, etc.
The evidence is there, the interpretations may differ but in every case I've read about those differences can be intelligently and rationally debated. You think a minor Jewish cult lead by an unknown Jewish carpenter preaching love for thy enemy in a violently religious atmosphere became THE largest religion on planet earth because of faith founded on nothing tangible in the real world? That, it seems to me, would take a lot of faith itself to believe.

Do you believe in leprechauns? Fairies?

What do you mean by believe in? In their real sentient existence? In their existence as fictional characters? Or in their non-existence all together? How do you define them? As soon as we clarify, I can give you my considered response about what I believe. And if it apposes what you believe then it can be said that "I don't believe what you believe" because of what I do believe not because I have no belief.

This atheist doesn't make god claims.

Then atheists (you) can't debate God's existence and should remain mute on the matter. But I've yet to run into one that has. You say you don't make claims about "god" but as far as I know neither do rocks. So if atheists don't make claims then what do they do? Just sit there not claiming anything? How can they say anything about God or evidence referencing God if they make no claims referencing God?

An atheist claiming "god doesn't exist" is making a claim, but the person who doesn't believe, isn't making a claim.

So now your saying atheists do make claims?
I'm not sure you understand what the term means. Your making a claim here for instance. Once you make a claim, that is a testament to what you believe. If you have no claims then as an atheist you can make no counter claims to the evidence presented. Your reinforcing my belief that atheists simply don't want to claim a belief or even claim they make claims because if they do they put themselves on an equal footing with theists in a debate.
Atheist: I don't believe its raining outside.
Theist: Oh, okay so I shouldn't bother to take my umbrella?
Atheist: Oh no, I didn't say that.
Theist: So you don't know if its raining outside?
Atheist: Oh no, I didn't say that either.
Theist: So what are you saying?
Atheist: I'm saying nothing about the weather outside, I'm claiming nothing.
Theist: So, "I don't believe its raining outside" means nothing about it raining?
Atheist: Correct.
Theist: Then what does it mean?
Atheist: Um...nothing.I don't buy it.

I am rejecting the claims I've been given that god(s) exist because it doesn't convince me that god(s) exist.

So your claiming - Since claims are formulated from belief and rejection is founded in belief - that those claims are wrong or that you presently are too ignorant (haven't the knowledge - not an insult) to know whether they are right or wrong?

Yeah, sorry I don't want to have discussions about things I'm not interested in. Terrible, I know.

Seems like a cop out to me. After all your here aren't you? And discussing these interrelated topics? And you gave counter arguments which I subsequently answered.

DNA isn't just present in humans and doesn't just "make" humans. It's present in all living things on earth.
It's only a code in the metaphorical sense, not in the literal sense.You are correct. I didn't mean to imply that only humans have DNA. The argument applies to DNA as a molecule not specific DNA. I guess I mentioned humans because, well, we're human....and my particular belief is that, as regards God, humans hold a particularly unique position in the world. DNA is the literal embodiment of the information used to create a living thing. DNA isn't symbolic. It exists in the real world with correspondingly real functions. DNA makes the code and the code IS the sequenced DNA. What do you mean by metaphorical code?The code produced by the amino acids in DNA is specific to their position and specific function in reality. setarcos said:
Why does science find it so difficult to "naturally" explain the origin of the information in DNA and other biomacromolecules in living cells?

It doesn't.

I'm afraid it does...as a matter of fact it hasn't yet. That's the whole point of the narrative I cited concerning this matter.

The "sequence of symbols" in DNA are made up by us.

Okay I think I see what your meaning. The symbols used are made up by us, the sequence they are used in DNA is not. The particular symbology we use to impart information about DNA is irrelevant to the code expressed in DNA.

It sounds like these people are talking about language, which DNA is not.

? They are using language to impart information to others yes. Since language is a system of symbols whereby specific information is transmitted for a purpose the language used to represent that information is irrelevant to that information.
Change the symbology used and you may change the way of or ability to impart that information but you do not change the information.

Ah, so you're an intelligent design proponent, I take it? You're certainly using their language.

Seriously? I know we've walked from the existence of demons to atheism and the existence of God but here specifically I presumed you understood God to be a sentient being involved in the creation of the universe...somewhat along the lines of the Christian version of God. So when asking for evidence it should be implied that that evidence points towards a sentient being (God) and design (creation) in the universe. Now, like in atheism, there are differing versions of intelligent design so you would have to narrow that down to what you exactly mean.
No...let me, it would be quicker. I believe in an existent sentient being capable of creating and sustaining this universe in existence (how, not sure) which, because of its created nature might be found within it, evidence of purposeful design.

It's "like" a computer code, metaphorically speaking. Literally speaking, it is not.

Its not said to BE a computer code. Its said to be like a computer code. The metaphor is in the comparison to a well known system of coding...computer coding. Some people say it is Literally like a computer code in that its methods of imparting coded information are literally alike. From base pairs it codes for function. How is this relevant to the discussion? It seems to be nitpicking. The metaphor is in the language used as comparison, not in the information contained in DNA.

Sorry, what does any of this have to do with the (non)existence of demons?

As I've said above...we've strayed from the entity being discussed. But the process of evaluating existence is similar.

And why and how does any of this point to the existence of some god(s)?

It depends on how you define God(s). It points towards purposeful design. Its useful in that if one postulates the existence of a Creator, one would expect to see some evidence of purposeful design to the universe.

This is just quote mining and not really deserving of a response, sorry. Quote mining is a dishonest debate strategy that I'm not interested in.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by quote mining or how to use it but the quotes were meant to clarify what's being said not to obfuscate its meaning.
Geeze, one person asks for quotes and references and another condemns it?!

These "universal constants" are they way humans describe what is going on around us. They are descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

I somewhat disagree. How does planks constant describe the universe for you? How does (6.673 x 10^-11Nm^2/kg^2) describe gravity for you? I think you've got it backwards. They are prescriptive in that they tell us what our experience should expect from reality.
You don't "observe" the gravitational constant Rather you experience gravity for instance.

Good evidence is evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the claim in some independently verifiable way.

The probabilistic measurements of the information contained within DNA was and can be independently verified. Same with the universal constants.

 

[setarcos]

I don't believe rumours about workmates. Or medicine. Or anything else.

Hogwash, unless you're telling me that the efficacy of every medicine you've ever taken was directly verified by you in person before you took it? In the absence of personal verification we daily act on faith.

Can a medicine's efficacy BE verified? Sure. Has someone verified its safety and efficacy before it got to you to take? I hope so. But until you personally verify its safety and efficacy it remains a "rumor" to you and you take it on faith.

Someone tells you that there's a surprise birthday party for a coworker and they want you to be there. You take it on faith they are telling the truth if you decide to go.

After a disaster in which a chemical spill occurred near your house and you had to evacuate the local authorities tell you the air and water etc. has been tested and its safe to go home...faith again.

Need I go on?

If the evidence presented is something we can't personally analyze and isn't independently verifiable, why should we accept it? Why would you?

Simply because something cannot be independently verified at the present doesn't mean it wont ever be verifiable. Some of the predictions of Einstein's theories weren't verified until years later. Some of Hawking's solid scientific work are unverifiable do to a current lack of knowing how to verify them.
Why should we accept it? Sometimes I wonder why indeed. But we do. We all do, on a daily basis as I've shown above.
I think what we choose to accept on faith is more of an indicator of who we are as a person and is not solely based on what we think we know about how the universe works or should work.

Faith is useless to me.

I think I've shown that you cannot purposefully or efficiently act without faith in your life.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing when they don't have good evidence.

And yet we constantly choose what is "good enough evidence" to act on which is a reflection of the person not the veracity of the evidence.

So faith is not a reliable pathway to truth and I have no use for it.

Hate to break it to you but the world runs on faith. At its core, science is faith.
Sometimes faith is the only path to verifiable truth. Sometimes you never know the truth until you take the leap.

If everyone waited for absolute truth to come to them before they acted we would have become extinct as a species before our first sunset.

Your experience has told you that faith can lead one to disaster. And it can and has. But what can’t ever do that?

Faith has also lead armies to victory, survivors to salvation, and people to wonderful new discoveries. And mostly…at the root, all we are ever left with is faith.

 

[Orbit]

It's clearly evident that you and folks alike are just content to make false accusations and claims.
That is equivalent to making useless post. Why I am responding is because you like to have the last word, making erroneous claims, and I am not letting you have that.

Let me save myself wasting time with you.
Direct question.

Someone stole your car.
The police arrive on the scene.
They conduct an investigation.
They ask for persons who witnessed anything.
I told the police that I saw the whole thing. I identified the thief - what she did; what she wore; her build.
Does the police report include my witness account as a piece of evidence?

It is very well-known that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and that analogy doesn't work anyway. Where are the peer-reviewed scholarly articles on demons? Surely if they existed, scientists would be researching them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wait a minute. Am I speaking Russian?
I posted the evidence. You claimed I did not.
The burden of proof lies with you, to provide the evidence for that claim. Not me.

Good grief!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is very well-known that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and that analogy doesn't work anyway. Where are the peer-reviewed scholarly articles on demons? Surely if they existed, scientists would be researching them.

Maybe the witness isn't a nice person and doesn't like some woman so claims it was her. Maybe the witness misremembers something. Maybe the witness is completely wrong and assuming based on some trivial similarity that made the witness think it was a particular woman. There are so many reasons eyewitness testimony is weak evidence. Second hand eyewitness testimony is even weaker and there isn't anyone to question.

I don't think you will get a reasonable answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Read the news, or study anthropology - either source will elucidate the existence of demons. Man's actions throughout history defy his intelligence - there is clearly an external force that influences man to act contrary to conscience, morality and pragmatism, and even self-preservation.

And yet, no one can point to any evidence that others can use to independently verify the claim.

 

[nPeace]

It is very well-known that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and that analogy doesn't work anyway. Where are the peer-reviewed scholarly articles on demons? Surely if they existed, scientists would be researching them.

Rather than answer the question, you resort to special pleading.

Bye.

 

[nPeace]

Maybe the witness isn't a nice person and doesn't like some woman so claims it was her. Maybe the witness misremembers something. Maybe the witness is completely wrong and assuming based on some trivial similarity that made the witness think it was a particular woman. There are so many reasons eyewitness testimony is weak evidence. Second hand eyewitness testimony is even weaker and there isn't anyone to question.

I don't think you will get a reasonable answer.

It's evidence.
You of all people should know that circumstantial evidence is evidence, regardless of the quality.
To say it's not evidence, is simply bearing false witness.
Denying the truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's evidence.
You of all people should know that circumstantial evidence is evidence, regardless of the quality.
To say it's not evidence, is simply bearing false witness.
Denying the truth.

I didn't say it wasn't evidence. The quality of the evidence is important and the fact that you have nothing better is evidence also.

Was that last a position statement?

 

[nPeace]

I didn't say it wasn't evidence.

Go back and read your words, and see how false that claim is.

The quality of the evidence is important and the fact that you have nothing better is evidence also.

Oh no, sir. The evidence I presented is stronger than you are willing to admit. Why? I can't say that here,

Was that last a position statement?

Pardon me.
I'm zipping it.

Bye.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Go back and read your words, and see how false that claim is.

I read them and know them since I wrote them. Your statement is false.

Oh no, sir. The evidence I presented is stronger than you are willing to admit. Why? I can't say that here,

It is weak and useless.

Pardon me.
I'm zipping it.

Bye.

You might as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Go back and read your words, and see how false that claim is.


Oh no, sir. The evidence I presented is stronger than you are willing to admit. Why? I can't say that here,


Pardon me.
I'm zipping it.

Bye.

You know the sort of evidence that people are asking for. No one has presented that evidence. Just because you cannot bring yourself to admit that you don't have it, doesn't make it exist.

There are things that I can't say here either, but that doesn't make those things any less true.

 

[YoursTrue]

I already answered this, I thought. In general no, I don't believe them. Though I'd want to evaluate claims case by case rather than write people off automatically.

It's not a matter to "write them off automatically." Because either there are spirits of dead persons that are kind of alive, since the person supposedly died & something that thinks & communicates remains or ... there are not spirits of dead persons that are kind of alive, since the person supposedly died & something that thinks & communicates. To clarify, either a person communicates with a dead person who is somehow alive or he does not.

 

[YoursTrue]

I get that's what your holy book says. My point is, that's not what actual witches believe.

I am relatively sure that is not what witches believe. Obviously witches (such as the witch of Endor who engaged Saul) believe they can summon up the dead and/or communicate with spirits. I remember when I was young and walking through lower Manhattan in NYC and I was approached by a woman who wanted to read my palm. I had no knowledge at that time of God and what He wanted. But I wouldn't let her read my palm. Frankly, I didn't want to know...what it was she could find. (lol) And thinking about it, why should I trust her anyway? Yes, she wanted a few $ but it surely wasn't the money that kept me away from that nonsensical almost horror story.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know the sort of evidence that people are asking for. No one has presented that evidence. Just because you cannot bring yourself to admit that you don't have it, doesn't make it exist.

There are things that I can't say here either, but that doesn't make those things any less true.

And surely you must realize that people can distort the truth. And twist the truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is the problem with omnipotence - it fits any/all data. It's unfalsifiable.

That is correct. While it is true that God's faithful servants have questioned Him as reported in the Bible, and the Omnipotent Majesty reasoned with some depending on circumstance, yes, God has and always will have the final say. Obviously the Devil didn't like that. Which leads to questions but I won't phrase them now. Maybe another time.