Demons - Is There Evidence They Exist?

[SkepticThinker]

Exactly my point.

If you don’t believe in them then it doesn’t matter what I post because it won’t change your mind.

You know would help people to believe in a thing?
Evidence of that thing. It shouldn't matter if one already believes or doesn't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was asked to provide evidence and I did and you said it wasn’t real evidence so what evidence would you consider real?

So yes this is entirely on you to tell me what you want.

You didn't provide actual evidence though. You alluded to it, with mention of the Catholic Church and peoples' claims, but didn't provide any of it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You didn't provide actual evidence though. You alluded to it, with mention of the Catholic Church and peoples' claims, but didn't provide any of it.

Exactly.

This thread is now at 28 pages and 542 posts (including this one), and there is still not a shred of unrefutable empirical evidence that demons exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly.

This thread is now at 28 pages and 542 posts (including this one), and there is still not a shred of unrefutable empirical evidence that demons exist.

You don't even have to go that far. There is no objective evidence that demons exist. That is a much lower bar and they cannot even get over that.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Eyewitness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence. Lots of people claim to have seen lots of things that are not established to be fact. I wouldn't want my freedom to hang solely on some eyewitness account. The witnesses claims would have to undergo voir dire and need some kind of substantiation.

The fact is that people can be mistaken about what they think they've seen or heard and then mistakenly believe their experience to be real. For example, a person's senses are very heightened during a paranormal investigation. And in the majority of the investigations I've been a part of, there are people who anticipate seeing spirits during the investigation; thus, the idea is already planted in their minds, which makes them more susceptible to being misled about what they see or hear. The truth is that a person's mind can play tricks on them, and what they think they saw or heard can be debunked, either by me or by someone else. Most of these people are adamant about what they've seen or heard and object to being told that what they experienced can be debunked. It isn't reliable evidence. That is why I never take what someone else sees or hears at face value whenever I'm investigating a haunted location.

As a paranormal investigator, I want to experience whatever they saw or heard for myself, thus testing if the experience can be repeated and accurately documented. My main goal is to try and replicate what they experienced or to debunk what the other person experienced. I'm well aware that there will be people who read this post who don't believe in psychic mediumship (which includes clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience, and claircognizance), and that doesn't bother me. Nevertheless, I have these abilities, and I've demonstrated them many times during the last sixteen years. In fact, I had my very first experience with them when I was six years old, which was forty-four years ago. However, I'm not participating in this thread here to argue or debate about them or the legitimacy of mediumship. Having said that, I'd like to say that, as a psychic medium and a sensitive, I have the advantage of knowing whether a human spirit or more than one is present at any given time. And, while I never openly state that I am a medium while investigating a suspected haunted location, it does make it easier for me to convince the other person, as well as others present, that what they thought they saw or heard wasn't paranormal and had a natural explanation. As I tried to explain in my prior post (#521), I'm serious about researching and investigating the paranormal.

 

[nPeace]

What would you consider actual proof?

I am a professional ghost hunter among other things and I have plenty of things that could be considered evidence to some people.

There is no point in listing it though if you will just automatically say that doesn’t count.

I think someone like you would require me to catch an actual demon, lock it in a cage, and invite you and 10,000 scientists over to examine it.

None of that is possible so there is no proof for you or any deniers available that any of you would accept

Thank you.
...and they will also say, as they did before, there is no evidence even when they say they didn't say there is no evidence. In other words, "just automatically say that doesn’t count."

 

[nPeace]

Actually before I go... Most anyone has seen a dog(a canine) at one point or time in their life. Most can produce one in reality on demand.

Can you say the same for a demon or a god?

I think you're missing the point.
If you posted the pictures of something never seen.
There is no point in posting pictures of something everyone sees every day of their life. No one needs "your evidence" of dogs, when they have dogs.

 

[nPeace]

I didn’t say it was evidence.

My point was that experiencing it for yourself is probably the only thing that would ever convince you but most people can’t handle it once the activity starts.

If I find a hundred dollar bill under my house, I have no evidence for that. In fact, according to @HonestJoe the moment you say you have evidence, you're stepping in to scope of science and logic, and should operate on that basis, so nothing is evidence unless you can prove to scientists that you actually found a hundred dollar bill.
That's how it works for these guys.

It does not work that way for people who don't see any evidence for scientists claims.
It's evidence for claims, even when it's not. Unless you can clearly disprove it. Only then do they admit they had no evidence for the claim. It was just a belief.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not the one claiming to be presenting evidence. You said that there is evidence of "demonic possession" (just like the OP said there is evidence for demons) so it is on you to say what you're saying that is evidence for exactly.

What are you saying a demon is? How does it affect things? What shows the events and phenomena you refer to are caused by these proposed demons rather than any other possibility?

Why are you unwilling (or unable) to simply describe and explain that? Again, the point is really simple; You don't start with evidence, you start with a hypothesis.

All that was said in the OP. ...and what did you say... everything under the sun, unrelated to it.
Man... you're amazing.

 

[danieldemol]

I think you're missing the point.
If you posted the pictures of something never seen.
There is no point in posting pictures of something everyone sees every day of their life. No one needs "your evidence" of dogs, when they have dogs.

Then bring us a demon and we won't need evidence of demons in my view

 

[We Never Know]

Then bring us a demon and we won't need evidence of demons in my view

Will the orange man suffice?

 

[We Never Know]

I think you're missing the point.
If you posted the pictures of something never seen.
There is no point in posting pictures of something everyone sees every day of their life. No one needs "your evidence" of dogs, when they have dogs.

So you have seen flying dogs?

 

[danieldemol]

Will the orange man suffice?

In a Metaphorical sense lol

 

[blü 2]

How can I prove something to someone who doesn't understand what they are asking for proof of?

Please finish your briefing to us of what a demon actually is.

Does it have objective existence, so we can find it in reality (the world external to the self, which we know of through our senses)?

Or does it only exist as a notion, concept, thing imagined in an individual brain?

If the former, please describe it to us so that if we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's a demon or not.

If the latter, what exactly is the concern?

 

[danieldemol]

Please finish your briefing to us of what a demon actually is.

In my view the Bible is to be believed (which is a pretty big *if*) then even the greatest demon of all Satan is susceptible to being bound with chains and sealed in with locks1, so it shouldn't be much of a problem since humans possess all manner of chains to bind a lower ranking demon so we can study what a demon actually is for ourselves.

1 From the NIV translation Revelation 20;
"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him"

From the NWT (Jehovah's Witnesses translation);
"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss+ and a great chain in his hand. 2 He seized the dragon,+ the original serpent,+ who is the Devil+ and Satan,+ and bound him for 1,000 years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss+ and shut it and sealed it over him"

 

[blü 2]

In my view the Bible is to be believed (which is a pretty big *if*) then even the greatest demon of all Satan is susceptible to being bound with chains and sealed in with locks1, so it shouldn't be much of a problem since humans possess all manner of chains to bind a lower ranking demon so we can study what a demon actually is for ourselves.

1 From the NIV translation Revelation 20;
"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him"

From the NWT (Jehovah's Witnesses translation);
"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss+ and a great chain in his hand. 2 He seized the dragon,+ the original serpent,+ who is the Devil+ and Satan,+ and bound him for 1,000 years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss+ and shut it and sealed it over him"

That sounds useful!

I'm not sure if there's a fit-for-purpose abyss anywhere near here, but I'll check.

 

[danieldemol]

That sounds useful!

I'm not sure if there's a fit-for-purpose abyss anywhere near here, but I'll check.

Well again *if* the Bible is to be believed there is one on earth, because the angel comes "down out of heaven" to bind Satan

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I find a hundred dollar bill under my house, I have no evidence for that. In fact, according to @HonestJoe the moment you say you have evidence, you're stepping in to scope of science and logic, and should operate on that basis, so nothing is evidence unless you can prove to scientists that you actually found a hundred dollar bill.
That's how it works for these guys.

It does not work that way for people who don't see any evidence for scientists claims.
It's evidence for claims, even when it's not. Unless you can clearly disprove it. Only then do they admit they had no evidence for the claim. It was just a belief.

No. It depends about which claim of yours you are trying to support. Would finding $100 be evidence for God? No more than it would be evidence for leprechauns. You need to have some sort of argument if you want to claim to have evidence. And different sorts of arguments have different standards of evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you.
...and they will also say, as they did before, there is no evidence even when they say they didn't say there is no evidence. In other words, "just automatically say that doesn’t count."

Did you post evidence? Show me.

 

[YoursTrue]

You call that evidence? That is like showing evidence of Kryptonite on account of what some believers in Superman say.

Your bar on what constitute evidence is pretty low, I am afraid. Even ants can jump over it.

Ciao

- viole

So what do you think is the reason for the increase of lawlessness in the world? Or do you think perhaps there is no increase of lawlessness in these days?