Demons - Is There Evidence They Exist?

[nPeace]

Actually that is a debated point among historians, around both whether previous conflicts could be considered world wars or that WW1 really should be (especially when you look from outside the European/Western point of view). Regardless, it wasn't really as sudden a change as you're presenting it as, but just another step along the change and progress in the world. If anything, it would be WW2 that has the biggest impact, given how it led to the development of nuclear weapons.

The fact remains that it is perfectly viable and predictable that human society would develop in this direction. Horrific conflicts happened throughout human history, it was only the developing transport and communications technology that led to it expanding from local, regional, national and international. There is no need for, and therefore no reason to assume, any outside influence involved in any of this, even if you do see 1914 as a significant point inhuman history.

Here is another circle.
Go back to my earthquakes scenario and connect the dots.
So huge earthquake takes place - affects the earth. No. It's not the weather, vehicles... It's the earthquake that shook the earth DayX, MonthY, YearZ.
Susequent after shock or earthquakes do too.

The year 1914 was the event of Revelation 12:7-12.
Subsequent to 1914 events - including World War Two, are all part of the composite sign of Matthew 24:7-14. The after shocks and other earthquakes.
I'm not describing one event.

Oh my poor head.
When will this circling end.

I'm not claiming to know, I'm just suggesting that there is no reason it wouldn't be a similar set of reasons to previous and subsequent conflicts. You're the one claiming to know there was a special cause for WW1 that didn't apply previously.

There is a reason. It was given.
You don't agree. Okay. What do you want me to do? What are you hoping will happen now?

No, scientists investigate evidence. None of that evidence has led to anything that would be commonly considered "supernatural" (and if it did, that thing wouldn't be "supernatural" any more, just "natural" :coo: ).

...In scientific research. Thanks.

You don't. That is why you need a clear hypothesis and to present the evidence you believe supports it. That way, other people can review that evidence and review any additional evidence against the hypothesis.

I still don't want you to repeat anything, I want you to say more. Yet again;

What is your hypothesis for the existence of Biblical demons? What exactly are you saying you have evidence for?

This is a repeat of what has already been covered.
If you missed, please start here, and work your way forward.
I have no interest in going in circles. It's just wasting time, and is just a distraction.

 

[shunyadragon]

Here is another circle.
Go back to my earthquakes scenario and connect the dots.
So huge earthquake takes place - affects the earth. No. It's not the weather, vehicles... It's the earthquake that shook the earth DayX, MonthY, YearZ.
Susequent after shock or earthquakes do too.

The year 1914 was the event of Revelation 12:7-12.
Subsequent to 1914 events - including World War Two, are all part of the composite sign of Matthew 24:7-14. The after shocks and other earthquakes.
I'm not describing one event.

Oh my poor head.
When will this circling end.


There is a reason. It was given.
You don't agree. Okay. What do you want me to do? What are you hoping will happen now?


...In scientific research. Thanks.


This is a repeat of what has already been covered.
If you missed, please start here, and work your way forward.
I have no interest in going in circles. It's just wasting time, and is just a distraction.

Oh my poor head.
When will this circling end.

What has the above to do with the evidence for the existence of demons?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm still waiting for the evidence supporting the existence and actions of demons. Circumstantial, anecdotal, humorous, suggestive, any evidence.


Nothing. Not even crickets. Crickets would at least be something.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh my poor head.
When will this circling end.

What has the above to do with the evidence for the existence of demons?

I don't see it ever ending.

Most of what I read on the previous page instead of support for the claims of demons was a collage of logical fallacies. The deluge of gish gallop in the string of giant posts that really don't say anything in support of demons, straw men, whataboutism, misrepresentation of the evidence for science, and on and on and on and on.

 

[shunyadragon]

I find it interesting, that people are willing to believe in the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor, when they take circumstantial evidence, and call that objective evidence for their claim.
Yet, billions of people, including thousands of scientists, cannot see that evidence as supporting belief in that theory.
Then these same people say, they need objective evidence for the existence of demons, but can't take the circumstantial evidence presented.

You may find the above bold interesting, but it is false. There are likely millions or maybe billions of ignorant people based on an ancient religious agenda who disagree with the scientific foundation of evolution as common ancestry of all life, but scientists in the fields related to evolution predominantly do accept evolution, maybe only a few hundred scientists, if that, do not accept the common ancestry of life. The science of evolution is based on common ancestry and is not based on circumstantial evidence.

Worthy of note: The higher the education level the more likely people accept the sciences of evolution.

To support the sciences of evolution is to support common ancestry based on objectively verifiable evidence.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public, and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation–evolution controversy, and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific, and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of evolution by the general population exists, but evolution is taught at public schools and universities.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, with 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as natural selection.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm still waiting for the evidence supporting the existence and actions of demons. Circumstantial, anecdotal, humorous, suggestive, any evidence.


Nothing. Not even crickets. Crickets would at least be something.

Evil Demon Crickets

 

[McBell]

I find it interesting, that people are willing to believe in the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor, when they take circumstantial evidence, and call that objective evidence for their claim.
Yet, billions of people, including thousands of scientists, cannot see that evidence as supporting belief in that theory.
Then these same people say, they need objective evidence for the existence of demons, but can't take the circumstantial evidnce presented.

Project Steve

 

[shunyadragon]

Project Steve

@nPeace may not know what Project Steve was.

 

[McBell]

@nPeace may not know what Project Steve was.

All they have to do is click the link I provided.

But in summary: there are more scientists who support evolution named Steve than there are scientists who reject evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evil Demon Crickets

I'm tired. Apparently too tired to come up with a good evil demon cricket name. Best I could do was Disharmony Cricket or Calamity Cricket. By Jiminy, I'm just not on my game tonight. That is probably evidence of demons.

 

[Soandso]

All they have to do is click the link I provided.

But in summary: there are more scientists who support evolution named Steve than there are scientists who reject evolution.

Ok, this is good

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Project Steve

I thought Project Steve was a pretty amusing poke at the ID list of science denying scientists that were mostly not biologists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said you are a liar? It's there for all to see... I did not.

You'ld have to be a total idiot not to see the implication in the posts quoted.
Don't try to deny it. It's there for all to see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought Project Steve was a pretty amusing poke at the ID list of science denying scientists that were mostly not biologists.

That too.

 

[HonestJoe]

The year 1914 was the event of Revelation 12:7-12.

Yes, I get that is your belief and assertion here but the problem is that you've not actually provided any evidence to support that. Your personal interpretation of and beliefs about particular scripture is not evidence. 1914 is far from the only point in human history that you could reasonable present as a transition to a worse period and there is nothing beyond your faith to say that Revelation has to refer to specific points in time at all (after all, God and Heaven are presented as infinite and eternal, outside the scope of linear time). And even within your interpretation, it doesn't necessarily refer to literal demons as you're perceiving them to be, so even within the religious context, you could be wrong.

There is a reason. It was given.

No, you have given no reason (e.g. no evidence) that your interpretation must be correct. You are only presenting an alternative explanation (of sorts) for certain historic events but that doesn't automatically dismiss any existing explanations. You don't just need evidence to support your explanation, you need sufficient evidence to lift it above the evidence for any alternatives (or, more commonly in practice, develop a new theory based on the combination of all the evidence).

This is a repeat of what has already been covered.

It is not a repeat. When I first asked you for a hypothesis you refused, declaring that it isn't necessary ( Post #378). You can either offer a hypothesis or you can admit that you don't have one. The problem with the latter is that it leaves no answer to the question of exactly what you're saying you have evidence of (and that is a question, even without a question mark in that context ).

You're free to believe whatever you want and even present those beliefs as unquestionable fact, but the moment you say you have evidence, you're stepping in to scope of science and logic, and should operate on that basis, if only superficially. If you can't (or won't) do that, you're never going to make any kind of progress with this.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

If you believe in God you believe in demons

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you believe in God you believe in demons

No, that is far from.true. You are assuming that your version of God is the right one. Your statement is not even true for Christians.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you believe in God you believe in demons

But the thread is about the evidence for demons. Is belief in something evidence that something exists or is it evidence that people believe it does?

Though, is what you say true? Is that a rule in order to be Abrahamic? Where is it written? Is there a list of criteria that must be met to be a Christian for instance? Are you saying one cannot be a Christian if you don't believe in demons or one is a Super-Christian for believing?

Just asking?

 

[McBell]

I thought Project Steve was a pretty amusing poke at the ID list of science denying scientists that were mostly not biologists.

It is.
Interestingly enough, it is the perfect response to anyone using that same tactic.

Seems to have the exact same "tail tucked run" effect nearly every single time.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

But the thread is about the evidence for demons. Is belief in something evidence that something exists or is it evidence that people believe it does?

Though, is what you say true? Is that a rule in order to be Abrahamic? Where is it written? Is there a list of criteria that must be met to be a Christian for instance? Are you saying one cannot be a Christian if you don't believe in demons or one is a Super-Christian for believing?

Just asking?

Belief in demons is not required for salvation but it’s like saying you don’t believe in angels.

Demons are the fallen angels.