It has been repeated here quite often that science does not prove nor disprove anything... nor does it try to.
Proof is not a standard of science. Conclusions and theories are contingent on the discovery of new EVIDENCE that would overturn or modify those theories and conclusions. However, there are some theories, like the theory of evolution, that have so much evidence that it would take extraordinary evidence to upset it.
So, the people who are crying "There is no evidence. There is no evidence for the supernatural." can continue to do so until every cell of their body meshes with the dirt under our feet.
I don't think anyone is "crying". I haven't seen it. Your choice of words and phrasing isn't unexpected, but it is telling. The statement that there is no valid evidence for the supernatural is a legitimate statement. There is no evidence that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that the supernatural has been demonstrated. Certainly nothing you have done.
The fact is, evidence is not evidence only when the scientific community calls it such.
I'm not sure why you are bringing the scientific community into this,. But you are correct, the scientific community doesn't arbitrarily establish what is and isn't evidence. Evidence is also not evidence just because some person claiming a literalist religious position says it is.
Every one of these posters on this thread who are crying, know that.
Again, I'm not aware of anyone on this thread is crying. Why do you keep saying that?
I'm not moved by the whining.
Well, I disagree over the direction that whining seems to be coming from, but what you are not moved by, based on the evidence, is reason and evidence. I haven't seen anyone that is asking for the evidence do any whining. I'm really not sure why you are taking that position. Is that the sort of witness that you are wanting to establish for yourself?
Let me refer you to what I referenced earlier.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.
When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.
inferred evidence
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.
You should read this and compare it with what has been offered as evidence on here an how it doesn't meet the criteria that you have here.
The opening attempt in the OP to compare demons to "dark energy" and "dark matter" was an attempt to argue on logic that failed. It was a false equivalence fallacy. This has been pointed out several times and well-established as a refutation of that poorly constructed argument. Dark energy and matter are placeholders in physics for observations that have no other explanation and is backed by the established knowledge of physics. Demons is a claim that isn't supported by any evidence or a body of understanding.
The claim that 10's, 100's or 1000's of reports and video documentation exist demonstrating demons isn't evidence either. It is a claim of evidence not in evidence with nothing to support that it even exists, let alone supports what it is claimed to. There are no studies offered in support of the claim to establish the existence of these reports and video, explain them and validate them. That is a legitimate criticism and not whining or crying. Without any corroboration, the claim is just hearsay at best. A claim of evidence is not evidence.
Your straw man argument about evidence and derogatory references to the opposition is not evidence. It isn't even good Christian ethics from my point of view. I really take issue with that entire effort to malign others that don't agree with you. Even if it is passive aggressive and not directed to anyone specifically. You are saying that anyone that has asked you for evidence is crying and whining. In fact, the tone of the style of your posting has an arrogant sense of superiority in my opinion. One that I can't reconcile existing given you haven't done anything.
I think that most of those asking for evidence would agree confidently that you believe that demons exist and you may even believe you have seen them or their work. But that you believe is not evidence. That anyone believes in something is not evidence for that something. If you deny the existence of other gods that some people claim exist, you've just defeated the entire basis for pursuing your belief as supporting evidence for what you believe.
Well, there, you have my answer.
They know it as well. So don't let the whining fool you.
See what I mean about the tone of superiority that I see in your statements. There's been no whining that I'm aware of and I haven't seen anything that you've done that would encourage anyone to see your position as superior here. Accusations like that can cause problems and certainly do not stimulate good relations, discussion or debate.
You consider people asking you to support your claims is a distraction? What are you doing in a debate then?
They do it to avoid addressing the actual meat put out there for them. It's too hard for them to chew. Solid, you see.
There you go again. People demand evidence to evaluate, draw conclusions and learn from. That you cannot provide it is your fault and responsibility and not that of those asking for it. Demeaning them for legitimate requests seems your way of avoiding the entire dining room.
It's not like the regular meat.
Do you think this gif helps support your position or undermine it? It isn't evidence for demons. It doesn't reflect anything I've seen here. It doesn't promote the debate. Seems superfluous and gratuitous. Do you consider it an example of good witness?
