Demons - Is There Evidence They Exist?

[PureX]

Yo, nPeace

All things good with you, I trust?

As you say, first we must understand what a demon is. Demons are a category of imaginary being, usually pictured as servants or followers of a superbaddy, who may have any of a wide range of names, such as Satan, Lucifer (though as a Latinist you'd know that's also a name of Jesus in the NT), the Devil and so on. As with all imaginary beings, other physical and moral traits and practices may be added at will.

Second, the bible reveals knowledge about a lot of imaginary beings. It would sound rather disrespectful to note that DC Comics reveal a lot about Superman but no different principle is involved.

The story of Superman is mythological, as are the stories in the Bible. It's important to know this because when we are engaging with mythological stories, we need to recognize that they are representational. They are not intended to be taken as a statement of fact, but rather as representations of an ideal, or a set of ideals.

 

[PureX]

I believe that the mystery remains because God wants our faith.
God could prove that He exists if He chose to, so the fact that God has never done that must mean that if God exists God wants our faith.

I think it would be foolish to believe if there was no evidence, but I believe that God has provided enough evidence for people to believe on faith and evidence.

I see the mystery as a great gift. Both for the infinite possibilities that confront us by our not knowing, and for the creative power that comes from acting on them in good faith.

 

[Alien826]

I believe that the mystery remains because God wants our faith.
God could prove that He exists if He chose to, so the fact that God has never done that must mean that if God exists God wants our faith.

I think it would be foolish to believe if there was no evidence, but I believe that God has provided enough evidence for people to believe on faith and evidence.

Do you have any reasonable reason (I'm not asking for evidential support) why such a being (God) would value belief based on insufficient evidence (faith) so highly? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you have any reasonable reason (I'm not asking for evidential support) why such a being (God) would value belief based on insufficient evidence (faith) so highly? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

God does not value belief based on insufficient evidence. That's why God provides sufficient evidence.
Of course not everyone will think it is sufficient, but that's not God's problem.

Regardless of what evidence God provides faith will also be required to believe in God since there is no proof that God exists.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course not. All you did is quote a book, whose supernatural claims have no evidence, either.

I told you, something that I cannot use to show evidence of invisible fairies in my garden, as well. Or any imaginary being I might make up.

Ciao

- viole

Ok. What about spirits of the dead that some people here claim to contact? Do you think they really exist, or do you think they are only in the minds of those who say they contact them but don't really exist?

 

[Alien826]

God does not value belief based on insufficient evidence. That's why God provides sufficient evidence.
Of course not everyone will think it is sufficient, but that's not God's problem.

Regardless of what evidence God provides faith will also be required to believe in God since there is no proof that God exists.

Sorry, I was going on this, that you said.

"I believe that the mystery remains because God wants our faith.
God could prove that He exists if He chose to, so the fact that God has never done that must mean that if God exists God wants our faith."

Is there evidence or not?

 

[lukethethird]

"God" is the term we use to refer to the great mystery: the mystery of source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And humanity has been aware of this mystery since humanity became self/other aware. That is an inescapable fact, contrary to your childish proclamations otherwise. It has been true for two hundred plus thousand years, and is still true today. As long as the questions remain, the mystery remains. And "God" is the term we currently use to refer to that elemental existential mystery.

To you maybe but to me that is just hog wash. I am in awe of life itself but I am not superstitious about gods, they are just figments of the imagination that have no bearing on anything except storytelling. Gods and demons are the things of fairy tales and it makes no difference to me if you want to believe what you believe but your concept of reality and your usage of god terms can only suit yourself, and to each their own.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, I was going on this, that you said.

"I believe that the mystery remains because God wants our faith.
God could prove that He exists if He chose to, so the fact that God has never done that must mean that if God exists God wants our faith."

Is there evidence or not?

There is evidence but there is no proof. Evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

 

[PureX]

Do you have any reasonable reason (I'm not asking for evidential support) why such a being (God) would value belief based on insufficient evidence (faith) so highly? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Faith is not "belief on insufficient evidence". That is a common biased misconception adhered to by both theists and atheists, alike. Faith is choosing to trust (act as if) something that one hopes to be so, will turn out to be so, even though one cannot currently know this to be so.

"Belief", on the other hand, is the presumption that what one believes to be so, is so, based on whatever evidence one has.

 

[lukethethird]

Faith is not "belief on insufficient evidence". That is a common biased misconception adhered to by both theists and atheists, alike. Faith is choosing to trust (act as if) something that one hopes to be so, will turn out to be so, even though one cannot currently know this to be so.

"Belief", on the other hand, is the presumption that what one believes to be so, is so, based on whatever evidence one has.

One can formulate a belief by drawing from conclusions that are based on evidence, and can hold on to that belief loosely should new information change or reenforce said belief, or one can suspend belief altogether until evidence presents itself, or one can be a fool and cling dearly to a belief that is based purely on faith.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, I was going on this, that you said.

"I believe that the mystery remains because God wants our faith.
God could prove that He exists if He chose to, so the fact that God has never done that must mean that if God exists God wants our faith."

Is there evidence or not?

Perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof. There is plenty of evidence that God exists. Even this conversation is evidence of it. But evidence is not proof. So if one chooses to trust what evidence they have (it will be different for everyone) even though they can't know it to be so ... that's an act of faith.

If they choose to presume that God exists based on whatever evidence they feel they have, then that is their "belief".

If you, on the other hand, are looking for proof of Gods existence, you won't find it. Because there is no possible way for a finite human being to validate the existence (whatever that would even mean) of an infinite being. I will give you an example.

Imagine that 'God' is hovering in the air in front of you right this minute in a "blaze of glory", and is telling you that He/it is God. How could you possibly determine that this was actually God? As opposed to perhaps being some very clever magician's trick. Or the deceit of some demon? Or perhaps it's some advanced alien being from outer space appearing to you in the way it thinks you will understand? Or perhaps it's some sort of anomaly happening in your brain?

The point is there is no way that we can verify the actual existence of what we call "God" because what we call God is a concept that is beyond our ability to comprehend or verify. It is infinite while we are not. It creates and transcends even existence, itself.

The complaint that there is "no evidence" is false. It's based on the errant presumption that "evidence = proof (that I can understand)". There is lots of evidence. But it does not rise to the level of proof for two reasons. One is that the "decider" of what he will accept as proof doesn't want it to. And therefor won't allow it. And second, because we humans don't possess the capability of recognizing what proof of God would even look like. And certainly not that we could verify.

So the choices left to us are faith, belief, or doubt.

 

[PureX]

One can formulate a belief by drawing from conclusions that are based on evidence, and can hold on to that belief loosely should new information change or reenforce said belief, or one can suspend belief altogether until evidence presents itself, or one can be a fool and cling dearly to a belief that is based purely on faith.

I think the mistake is falling into the trap of "belief".

One can choose to act as if God "X" exists even though they cannot know this to be so (no proof), because they find that in acting as if it is so, the quality of their experience of life in significantly increased. This is not a "foolish" choice. And in fact, to reject such an advantage based on a lack of proof would be the more foolish decision.

Otherwise I agree with your post: that, "One can formulate a belief by drawing from conclusions that are based on evidence, and can hold on to that belief loosely should new information change or reenforce said belief."

The problem with such a tentative belief is that beliefs don't like to be tentative. They want to become truths. In fact we are treating them like truths. And our egos will fight to make them true in our minds.

 

[lukethethird]

I think the mistake is falling into the trap of "belief".

One can choose to act as if God "X" exists even though they cannot know this to be so (no proof), because they find that in acting as if it is so, the quality of their experience of life in significantly increased. This is not a "foolish" choice. And in fact, to reject such an advantage based on a lack of proof would be the more foolish decision.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

Quality of life increases when one has a brain and knows how to use it.

 

[blü 2]

Maybe a total non-sequitur, but I see one big difference. DC Comics has never claimed that Superman is anything but a fictional character, and that their intention is to entertain. The Bible on the other hand was written by people that did believe they were writing something factual.

I'm not sure if that adds anything to the discussion?

I don't think we're in conflict. The essential point is that both fictional beings and supernatural beings come from the same stable, existing only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

If that's wrong, I'm sure our friend @nPeace will show us a credible video of an indisputably real demon ─ an interview, perhaps?

 

[blü 2]

The story of Superman is mythological, as are the stories in the Bible. It's important to know this because when we are engaging with mythological stories, we need to recognize that they are representational. They are not intended to be taken as a statement of fact, but rather as representations of an ideal, or a set of ideals.

The Superman stories are didactic, in that Good must win in the end. The bible stories are a mix of folk-tale, folk-history, real history, rules, songs, poems, wisdom, and so on, with occasional wavering of focus from the implicit moral that God must win in the end. Perhaps you and I are not too far apart on this.

 

[Alien826]

Do you have any reasonable reason (I'm not asking for evidential support) why such a being (God) would value belief based on insufficient evidence (faith) so highly? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

This was in response to a post by @Trailblazer that included this.

I believe that the mystery remains because God wants our faith.
God could prove that He exists if He chose to, so the fact that God has never done that must mean that if God exists God wants our faith.

Both of you (@Trailblazer and @PureX responded by explaining why "faith" is not "insufficient evidence" and totally ignored the actual question I asked. I don't care how you define "faith", but it ain't based on conclusive evidence, either as @PureX defined it (hoping for something you want to be true) or @Trailblazer would have it (being based on evidence that can't be verified). If it was so based we wouldn't need faith. Do you at least agree on that?

Can I get an answer to the actual question, which I'll rephrase to make it clearer? "Do you have any reasonable reason why such a being (God) would value belief based on faith so highly?".

 

[Trailblazer]

The Superman stories are didactic, in that Good must win in the end. The bible stories are a mix of folk-tale, folk-history, real history, rules, songs, poems, wisdom, and so on, with occasional wavering of focus from the implicit moral that God must win in the end. Perhaps you and I are not too far apart on this.

The only difference is that Superman is not real whereas God is real.
Sorry, I could not help myself, and I was looking for an excuse to talk to a 'nice' atheist.

I don't think we will live long enough to see it, but I believe that God will win in the end.

 

[Alien826]

I don't think we're in conflict. The essential point is that both fictional beings and supernatural beings come from the same stable, existing only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

OK.

If that's wrong, I'm sure our friend @nPeace will show us a credible video of an indisputably real demon ─ an interview, perhaps?

I'll await that patiently.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'll await that patiently.

I am waiting to see that Demon too, a real live Demon!

 

[Trailblazer]

Can I get an answer to the actual question, which I'll rephrase to make it clearer? "Do you have any reasonable reason why such a being (God) would value belief based on faith so highly?".

I don't know. I am not God so I cannot speak for God. I can only surmise, based upon certain scriptures.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

We must first believe that it is 'possible' for God to exist, and that requires faith since no man has ever seen God. Then we go looking for the evidence. I believe that God will reward those who earnestly seek Him by helping them find the evidence they need to believe.

Faith is also a very powerful thing, not only when it applies to religious beliefs, so I think that is another reason God wants us to have faith.
Faith gives us hope and we need hope to survive the changes and chances of this life!

Matthew 17:20 And He *said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Another possible reason that God wants us to have faith is because God wants to remain in hiding so He can remain a mystery.