Demons - Is There Evidence They Exist?

[nPeace]

What is evil and what is good is decided by the laws of society and the laws of the country.
If there is a law against killing someone's cat, then one must not do it (India has such a law). In that case, the course of action is to make a police complaint and let the courts decide it.

So, it makes sense to you that man makes the laws for himself and others, on what is good and evil, but there are no laws on good and evil?
Does that make sense to you? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Some one admittedly biased wrote something in a book 2000 years ago about something that we find does not happen now (walking on water, water changing into wine), that does not make it evidence.

Her personal experience cannot be taken as evidence. What if she hallucinated or is lying?
Same with writers of Bible. They were writing much after the death of Jesus (if Jesus ever existed) and there is no corroborating evidence. They were biased, being Christians themselves. They were marketing their belief.

Yes. I agree. Just claiming something happened or is the case, is not counted as evidence.

 

[nPeace]

That is exactly what atheists say. If you show evidence for God, soul, Jesus and demons, you won't have a problem being believed.

Exactly. You ask for proof.

Oh, it was these Bible quotes for which you were asking for a PM to Stevicus. Even most Christians do not believe what JWs believe, what to talk of non-Christians.
Stevicus has already mentioned that - 'God did not do a good job in creating humans'.

No. Those are answers to questions.
Dealing with the frivolous claim that 'God did not do a good job in creating humans', is easy... like slicing a tomato.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, it makes sense to you that man makes the laws for himself and others, on what is good and evil, but there are no laws on good and evil?
Does that make sense to you? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Yes, humans make laws for themselves, in the society or in the government. If you say Cthulhu makes the laws, that does not make sense to me.

No. Those are answers to questions.
Dealing with the frivolous claim that 'God did not do a good job in creating humans', is easy... like slicing a tomato.

They are your answers, it is not necessary that other people agree to it.
Yeah, that is a frivolous claim - since God is a fictitious entity.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And I'm not an atheist so save me your false dichotomy.

Oh my goodness…
Did I call you an atheist?
No.

I said,

Any atheists here that would like to chime in?

If I had thought you were, I would have said,
“Any other atheists….”

Appreciate your answer, though. Thanks.

But I won’t bother you anymore.

 

[nPeace]

Oh my goodness…
Did I call you an atheist?
No.

I said,

If I had thought you were, I would have said,
“Any other atheists….”

Appreciate your answer, though. Thanks.

But I won’t bother you anymore.

Need to borrow my crank for when you meet with some crankiness?

 

[viole]

Just the evidence you deny.
However, that fine. They accuse us of denying "evidence" too, when we say you haven't provided any.

I cannot deny what you did not provide. It would be like denying the evidence for Superman.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

I cannot deny what you did not provide. It would be like denying the evidence for Superman.

Ciao

- viole

Evidence for Superman would be seeing physically, like seeing a man flying, etc.
That cannot be compared to evidence that is not of a physical nature.
So, sorry. That's just a lame excuse for denying real evidence.
You're trying too hard... and coming up empty.

 

[nPeace]

Ice is evidence of something - it is evidence of a low energy state between H2O molecules.

Not to a child it isn't. Nor is it evidence of a low energy state between H2O molecules to an idiot like me, who have not a clue what H2O molecules... H2what?
Get the point?

 

[nPeace]

Reliable evidence is evidence that hasn't been fabricated or misunderstood.

In my view the Bible contains both fabricated evidence such as claims of miracles, and misunderstood evidence such as ice allegedly being made from God's voice Job37:10.

You are deciding what is evidence, based on what you do not know.
For example, when scientists gather facts, and make inferences, or interpret that evidence to mean X, you do not say it is fabricated or misunderstood.
It may well be misunderstood, but they only accept that, if there are other facts that demonstrate the interpretation was wrong.
Until then, it is evidence, right... even if it is wrong, but you only discover that later. Right, or wrong?

 

[nPeace]

If the surgeon was on the street trying to stab people with it, I'd hope the police officer would have something to say about it.

Yes.

You used the common public perception of dark matter certainly. The problem is that metaphor doesn't actually work as well as you think it does.

Please explain.

You've still not demonstrated that the world has changed for the worse nor have you explained how the existence of demons would actually cause such a change.

I have. You evidently have ignored them.
However, you read them here, and responded here.
Interestingly, you seemed to have read half the post, and just ignored the other half, or read the whole post, and decided you are going to pretend the other part does not exist.
In either case, it's there.

People sometimes do bad things because people are flawed. That is even concept within Christianity. Other bad things happen because of random natural events (though often influence by human behaviour too) - fire, flood, drought and disease for example. None of that requires outside intervention of demons to occur so if you're going to propose that as a factor, especially as a new or increasing factor, you need more than the fact of the effects as evidence.

This is just you claiming what you think. You have no way of demonstrating that the evidence is not admissible.

No. You've talked about evidence, and introduced all sorts of complexities and diversions (like the whole "composite sign" stuff) but you've yet to present a clear hypothesis and therefore no evidence to support any hypothesis by definition. You still need to explain exactly what effects you're proposing demons and, at least in general principle, how you're propose they achieve those effects. Only then can evidence be considered to support those proposals.

You are going in circles, and clearly doing everything you can to dismiss the evidence.
Your words... 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, you are contradicting yourself.
I have no desire to keep going in an enless circle, so you can either start over, and squash what you said, or go back to post #117, and see if you can show there is no evidence. Or...

 

[shunyadragon]

You just proved you aren't reasonable. Thanks.
How can I prove something to someone who doesn't understand what they are asking for proof of?
Does that make sense to you.

Prove you have on shoes.
Um

... What's a shoe?

Objectively Um

... What's a Demon?

The claim of the effects of hypothetical Demons is no evidence they exist when the effects claimed can be explained as having objective sources,

It is unreasonable to claim Demons exist without evidence. The same is true for Unicorns, Purple People Eaters, Vampires, and Zombies.

Objective evidence for Demons, please.

 

[HonestJoe]

Please explain.

Dark matter was proposed because effects were observed which couldn't be explained by any known cause. The exact nature of dark matter isn't stated because it isn't (yet) known.

You're talking about effects which could be explained by some kind of demonic intervention but could also be explained by other mundane causes yet you're asserting the specifically defined Biblical demons as the cause.

I have. You evidently have ignored them.

You've spoken about general effects (from the perception of a subset of humans at least) but you've not described any process by which demons actually causes those effects.

This is just you claiming what you think. You have no way of demonstrating that the evidence is not admissible.

And you're just claiming what you think. The difference is that I'm not asserting a definitive conclusion. I've not said demons definitely don't exist. I'm not even questioning your evidence but I am challenging your interpretation of it.

Your words... 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, you are contradicting yourself.

Yes, but you never confirmed that is your hypothesis, you went off on a tangent. Are you now willing to agree that is your hypothesis or indeed, describe what your hypothesis actually is? You seen, it is impossible to assess evidence without knowing what hypothesis it is being applied to.

I have no desire to keep going in an enless circle, so you can either start over, and squash what you said, or go back to post #117, and see if you can show there is no evidence. Or...

Again, I'm not claiming there is no evidence (I actually think there is much more evidence than you're giving credit for). I am questioning your apparent conclusion based on that evidence. You repeating the same evidence is going around in circles. You need to add something new to clarify your conclusion.

Of course, maybe you know that the more detail you go in to, more holes could appear in those details. Remember, "I don't know" is always a valid answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evidence for Superman would be seeing physically, like seeing a man flying, etc.
That cannot be compared to evidence that is not of a physical nature.
So, sorry. That's just a lame excuse for denying real evidence.
You're trying too hard... and coming up empty.

Nah. This post is a lame excuse for not providing evidence for your claims.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evidence for Superman would be seeing physically, like seeing a man flying, etc.
That cannot be compared to evidence that is not of a physical nature.
So, sorry. That's just a lame excuse for denying real evidence.
You're trying too hard... and coming up empty.

I believe the above applies to the weakness of your claim that Demons exist.

 

[danieldemol]

Not to a child it isn't. Nor is it evidence of a low energy state between H2O molecules to an idiot like me, who have not a clue what H2O molecules... H2what?
Get the point?

If the point is that the Bible writers where ignorant like children or "idiots like you" then sure I guess.

 

[danieldemol]

You are deciding what is evidence, based on what you do not know.
For example, when scientists gather facts, and make inferences, or interpret that evidence to mean X, you do not say it is fabricated or misunderstood.
It may well be misunderstood, but they only accept that, if there are other facts that demonstrate the interpretation was wrong.
Until then, it is evidence, right... even if it is wrong, but you only discover that later. Right, or wrong?

There are other facts that demonstrate that the Bible is fabricated or misunderstood evidence, such as the facts which refute the global flood of Noah, or the facts which support evolution, or any of countless other facts which you ignore as part of your science denial in my view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not to a child it isn't. Nor is it evidence of a low energy state between H2O molecules to an idiot like me, who have not a clue what H2O molecules... H2what?
Get the point?

It sounds like you are trying to say if you are ignorant, you will believe anything. Is that correct?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are deciding what is evidence, based on what you do not know.
For example, when scientists gather facts, and make inferences, or interpret that evidence to mean X, you do not say it is fabricated or misunderstood.
It may well be misunderstood, but they only accept that, if there are other facts that demonstrate the interpretation was wrong.
Until then, it is evidence, right... even if it is wrong, but you only discover that later. Right, or wrong?

It sounds like a lot rationalization to avoid admitting that there is a dearth of evidence provided about demons.

I haven't seen any evidence about demons yet.

 

[nPeace]

Dark matter was proposed because effects were observed which couldn't be explained by any known cause. The exact nature of dark matter isn't stated because it isn't (yet) known.

You're talking about effects which could be explained by some kind of demonic intervention but could also be explained by other mundane causes yet you're asserting the specifically defined Biblical demons as the cause.

From your scientists...
there are other approaches to make sense of why galaxies behave so strangely. Our new study, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, shows that, by tweaking the laws of gravity on the enormous scales of galaxies, we may not actually need dark matter after all.

Perhaps you have heard of the other explanation.
I heard at least two.

What's your point?
Are you saying that other explanation being possible, renders all not evidences?
What exactly are you saying, because if this is another joke, I'll laugh.

You've spoken about general effects (from the perception of a subset of humans at least) but you've not described any process by which demons actually causes those effects.

I did.
Strange, the OP covers every detail, and you are saying you don't see it.
I believe we need special glasses for special blindness. I have neither.

And you're just claiming what you think. The difference is that I'm not asserting a definitive conclusion. I've not said demons definitely don't exist. I'm not even questioning your evidence but I am challenging your interpretation of it.

Okay. Scientists do that.
They challenge each other's interpretation.

Yes, but you never confirmed that is your hypothesis, you went off on a tangent. Are you now willing to agree that is your hypothesis or indeed, describe what your hypothesis actually is? You seen, it is impossible to assess evidence without knowing what hypothesis it is being applied to.

Do I need a hypothesis?
Okay, so I am in a violent gang, dealing drugs and guns.
My homeboy calls me up and says, 'Yo, boy. Heads up. Two hit men are heading over to your nest. Fly high or, roll."
I reply, "Wait. I haven't worked out a hypothesis for the scientists to test yet. You know, everything - absolutely everything - must be confirmed by science. Where you been living man? I'll sit here and think of one."


Actually, I only need two things.
Evidence that I have a reliable source of information, and evidence supporting that, based on knowledge.
I'm not in a science lab.

Again, I'm not claiming there is no evidence (I actually think there is much more evidence than you're giving credit for). I am questioning your apparent conclusion based on that evidence. You repeating the same evidence is going around in circles. You need to add something new to clarify your conclusion.

I only repeat to people who say they can't see what's given to them.
Hence, I follow circles created by others.

Of course, maybe you know that the more detail you go in to, more holes could appear in those details. Remember, "I don't know" is always a valid answer.

I think you just exposed what you are looking for.
Strawman argument - a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack or refute.

 

[nPeace]

If the point is that the Bible writers where ignorant like children or idiots like you then sure I guess.

You are wrong on both. You aren't sure, and you guessed wrong.

There are other facts that demonstrate that the Bible is fabricated or misunderstood evidence, such as the facts which refute the global flood of Noah, or the facts which support evolution, or any of countless other facts which you ignore as part of your science denial in my view.

A view not agreed on by many.