Demons - Is There Evidence They Exist?

[lukethethird]

Most of the atheists on here are so blinded by their own bias that they can't even admit to what faith actually IS, let alone that they engage in it all the time.

Accusations come awfully cheap.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Most of the atheists on here are so blinded by their own bias...

I find this to be quite an ironic statement given that most theists on this forum are so close-minded to spiritualism, such as its belief that the living can interact with and communicate with the dead. In my opinion, they are so deeply entrenched in their religion that they're blinded by their religious bias.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find this to be quite an ironic statement given that most theists on this forum are so close-minded to spiritualism, such as its belief that the living can interact with and communicate with the dead. In my opinion, they are so deeply entrenched in their religion that they're blinded by their religious bias.

Most of the religious are blinded by their religious bias owing to their scriptures, but @PureX is not a believer with a religion.
At least 'some' theists are open to spiritualism, but I don't think 'any' atheists are open to such practices, since they don't believe in a life after death.

 

[viole]

The entire theological history of humanity.

Sure.

The so-called ad-populum evidence. Like the evidence that black cats bring bad luck. Supported by blackcatology, and its history.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

Sure.

The so-called ad-populum evidence. Like the evidence that black cats bring bad luck. Supported by blackcatology, and its history.

Ciao

- viole

Versus the "no evidence" evidence,

 

[viole]

Versus the "no evidence" evidence,

Yes, we already know God has no evidence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

Yes, we already know God has no evidence.

Ciao

- viole

Plenty of evidence. Just no proof that can transfer to anyone else.

 

[viole]

Plenty of evidence.

For instance?

Ciao

- viole

 

[YmirGF]

For instance?

Ciao

- viole

I'm going to side with @PureX here from a purely linguistic standpoint. PureX is quite right when saying that there is EVIDENCE of demons. I simply would not argue that point. Where the rubber hits the road is that there is indeed no definitive proof of the existence of demons, but that does not mean there is NO evidence whatsoever.

The evidence, as PureX correctly asserts, is riddled throughout the entire length of human history. The point is that this evidence is often very low grade, circumstantial, second hand, etc...

As a society we now laugh at the idea of demons going bump in the night, but up to fairly recently that was not the case and most of the population believed fervently in the existence of demons. Based on their understanding of reality, the concept of demons filled a much-needed hole in their thinking and provided an easy explanation for much they did not understand. In my view, our current understanding grew out of this mess of thinking. Perhaps we should be a bit more generous to those who came before us, as we have only come to see the things differently due to the incompleteness of their vision of reality. I could be wrong, but that is how it hits me at 7:54 am and one coffee into the day.

 

[viole]

I'm going to side with @PureX here from a purely linguistic standpoint. PureX is quite right when saying that there is EVIDENCE of demons. I simply would not argue that point. Where the rubber hits the road is that there is indeed no definitive proof of the existence of demons, but that does not mean there is NO evidence whatsoever.

The evidence, as PureX correctly asserts, is riddled throughout the entire length of human history. The point is that this evidence is often very low grade, circumstantial, second hand, etc...

As a society we now laugh at the idea of demons going bump in the night, but up to fairly recently that was not the case and most of the population believed fervently in the existence of demons. Based on their understanding of reality, the concept of demons filled a much-needed hole in their thinking and provided an easy explanation for much they did not understand. In my view, our current understanding grew out of this mess of thinking. Perhaps we should be a bit more generous to those who came before us, as we have only come to see the things differently due to the incompleteness of their vision of reality. I could be wrong, but that is how it hits me at 7:54 am and one coffee into the day.

That is no evidence at all. These are just, pending that looked after evidence, just myths. Everything coming from human history is a myth, by default. It can be promoted to historical, when objective evidence has been collected.

There is no logical entailment: riddled throughout the entire length of human history, ergo evidence of existence. In fact, if that was the case, then astrology would have evidence, too.

And the fact that there is a lot of theology does not add a iota to the plausibility of the claim. If I wrote a treatise about leprechaunology, that would not add a iota to the existence of leprechauns. Evidence would still be zero. Packaging things with some philosophical deodorant does not make them more plausible, and does not create evidence out of thin air.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

I think the problem is that too many of us have become blinded by the over-simplicity of materialism. And I'll try to give an example.

A team of professional mechanics get together and build a drag-racing car. And it turns out to be everything they'd hoped for. A strong contender on the drag-racing scene. So they paint the moniker "The Demon" on the sides of the car to let everyone know what they think of this car, and how they feel about it as a drag-racing machine.

No one is pretending that it's some sort of disembodied ghost-like persona. Everyone knows it's a machine. But even machines, especially complex machines with lots of moving parts that humans have to interact with can exhibit specific inclinations and proclivities that we humans will automatically perceive in a similar way to the way we perceive the behaviors of other humans. Machines can often be dangerous, and cantankerous, demanding and unpredictable. Or they can be efficient and reliable, and a pleasure to operate. And there is nothing wrong or illogical with our attributing these characteristics of the human experience to the world we create and interact with. Those mechanics called their race car "The Demon" because it exhibited behaviors and inclinations that they considered to be akin to 'demonic'. That is dangerous, tricky, unpredictable, powerful, and so on. So they labeled the car accordingly.

A "demon" is basically a label we ascribe to a collection of specific negative characteristics that we commonly find to be associated with each other, and with the thing that we are labeling, That race car is "a demon!" That weather pattern is gonna be "a demon!" That running back is "a demon!" Addiction is "a demon!" It's a word that defines a certain kind of unusually negative spirit (as in the spirit of foreboding at an execution). But it does not always have to refer to a self-aware, self-actualized, one. Sometimes it's just a machine. Or the weather. Or a circumstance. Because a "demon" is an idea set that we can apply to lots of things (and in fact we always have). Once we understand and accept this, we can communicate the idea without having to fight about it always referring to some invisible disembodied ghost-like being. But instead, as just a collection of inter-related experiential perceptions.

 

[YmirGF]

That is no evidence at all. These are just, pending that looked after evidence, just myths. Everything coming from human history is a myth, by default. It can be promoted to historical, when objective evidence has been collected.

There is no logical entailment: riddled throughout the entire length of human history, ergo evidence of existence. In fact, if that was the case, then astrology would have evidence, too.

And the fact that there is a lot of theology does not add a iota to the plausibility of the claim. If I wrote a treatise about leprechaunology, that would not add a iota to the existence of leprechauns. Evidence would still be zero. Packaging things with some philosophical deodorant does not make them more plausible, and does not create evidence out of thin air.

Ciao

- viole

I was hoping you would see the "bigger picture", as it were. In no way am I being supportive of the idea that demons exist. Full stop.

All I was expressing, and I think PureX was too, is that not so long ago, belief in demons was the DEFAULT idea. People for centuries have believed in the existence of these things, and that has no bearing on how we currently view the matter. The point is, THEY believed the "evidence" they were presented with as if there COULD be no other explanation. The most brilliant thinkers in the past believed in demons and evil, etc because it was a part of the fabric of their understanding of the world. It was a convenient lens through which to explain things they did not otherwise understand. Don't you think they realized that no one had ever captured a real live demon? That doesn't mean they didn't see those demonic eyes looking back at them through their fears.

Is that making any sense, or am I wasting my time?

 

[nPeace]

Then *if* that were true it would make them indirectly detectable, which contradicts your saying they are not physically detectable

If you believe smelling a "gas bomb" is physically detecting the person, yes, it would be contradictory to you.
However, I don't think that's physical detection, especially since you can neither see the "gas bomb" or the person.
To my understanding, physical detection and perception are not the same thing.

For example, if a virus gets into a person's system, it produces symptoms which may lead to the conclusion that a virus is present.
That's not physical detection of the virus. Physical detection, is when a physician actually observes the presence of the virus.

No. Dark matter is indirectly physically detectable through its effects is what I'm saying.

According to your understanding.
However, that not the way many understand it.

What Is Dark Matter? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

and dark energy, too!

www.nasa.gov

Scientists look at that gas and measure how much there is between galaxies in clusters. By doing this, they discovered that there must be five times more material in the clusters than we can detect. The invisible matter that we can't detect is called "dark matter."

In addition to these indirect ways, scientists at NASA think they have a direct way to detect dark matter using the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope. This telescope looks at gamma rays, the highest energy form of light. When two dark matter particles crash into each other, they might release a gamma ray. The Fermi Telescope could theoretically detect these collisions, which would appear as a burst of a gamma ray in the sky. Because Fermi has not been in space very long, scientists do not yet have enough data to form conclusions.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy's Role in the Universe

Learn about dark matter and dark energy.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Scientists have not yet observed dark matter directly. It doesn't interact with baryonic matter and it's completely invisible to light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, making dark matter impossible to detect with current instruments. But scientists are confident it exists because of the gravitational effects it appears to have on galaxies and galaxy clusters.

It doesn't because we can see brain deformity, see the effects that restoring chemical balance to the brain has by the consumption of chemicals that we can see etc in my view.

Evidence falls into categories such as fabricated evidence, mistaken evidence etc. In my view the Bible falls into these categories and *not* into the category of *reliable* evidence.

If you are claiming to have unreliable evidence it is irrelevant and a waste of time. But if you are going to claim reliable evidence it is on you to demonstrate that the evidence is reliable. And that i believe you can never do in a million years.

Since you are the one saying it, tell us what is "reliable evidence", because so far, I have presented reliable evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Well, as I said, some videos, maybe an interview, with a real demon, would be an excellent start.

I mean, without that, a lot of people, including me, will remain convinced that demons ─ and indeed all supernatural entities ─ exist only as concepts / things imagined, and aren't found in reality.

Will Dark Matter allow itself to be interviewed by you? Can you explain why?
Do you understand why you won't be able to interview demons?
Does that mean, none of them exist?
Where do you come up with these ideas blu?

 

[nPeace]

Why the PM? Why can't you discuss it here?

The person who humbly asks genuine questions, to me, deserves a satisfactory and thoroughly explained answer.
I don't want to be accused of preaching and proselytizing.

Are you not able to give a straight forward answer?

Not to someone sincerely asking. A straightforward answer, is not a satisfactory answer, in my view.

And then you want a break.

Yes. I have to be balanced, since I have other things to do.

That is OK. Have your break. But are you trying to hide something?

Hide something like what.
Are you generally very distrusting of people?

 

[nPeace]

Fair enough. It still doesn't seem to address my question though. Is there anything on that website that directly provides evidence for the existence of demons, which is the purported topic of your thread?

Did you want me to ignore this?
HonestJoe said:
OK, so we're slowly getting somewhere. Your hypothesis is that prior to 1914, there were no demons on Earth and after 1914, Satan and his demons were cast down to Earth and have "ruled" here ever since (apparently with Gods implicit consent)?

So now you need to produce evidence for that specific transition. Simply declaring that "the world changed" isn't evidence. You need to identify elements that didn't happen prior to 1914 and that could be best accounted for by demonic intervention, rather than the simple human failings that we have evidence of throughout recorded history.

You said... Is there anything on that website that directly provides evidence for the existence of demons...?
Are you asking for direct evidence of demons?

 

[nPeace]

Let's take then definition from dictionary.com as a start:
That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof

So, what have you got?

Ciao

- viole

Ah. I though so.
Two posters on here, have already pointed out that proof and evidence are not the same thing, since they obviously realize that at least five or sis persons seem to be confusing the two,
I said there is evidence. Not proof.
If you are asking for proof, you're in the wrong thread.

 

[nPeace]

"Tends (to)" ... "Indicates", "inclines toward", "points to", "suggests" ...

Ev·i·dence

noun

• 1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

NOT PROOF ... but evidence.

Oh, there it is again.
Maybe you need to use the biggest font size available.

 

[PureX]

Is that making any sense, or am I wasting my time?

Yes, and you are probably wasting your time.

But hey, that's what we do here!

 

[nPeace]

For instance?

Ciao

- viole

Design in nature.
Divine education.
Qualities / aspects of .spirit.

Most of which you would not understand... with the present mindset.