Do demons exist? Can that be tested?

[John Human]

When I lived in Bali, I couldn't help observing the pervasive evidence of belief in demons. And of course demons put in an appearance in the Bible, not to mention in the gargoyles of old cathedrals.

On the other hand, modern science would seem to categorically reject the existence of demons, without a clear reason why, unless it has to do with the axiomatic presuppositions of science's governing ideology of reductionist materialism.

Question: Do demons exist? What evidence is there, for or against?

--

[John Human]

Ancient Demon will act:

Ancient Demon has been observing. Five men have expressed opposition to what has been said. Ancient Demon has no intention of rebutting. Ancient Demon had the hope of conversing. It appears that others are being intimidated. It appears that those who intimidate have no other purpose.

[Swami]

Ancient Demon will act:

Ancient Demon has been observing. Five men have expressed opposition to what has been said. Ancient Demon has no intention of rebutting. Ancient Demon had the hope of conversing. It appears that others are being intimidated. It appears that those who intimidate have no other purpose.

I see the same thing. No one here has done what you've asked. Intimidation does not disprove the existence of spiritual beings.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 12 by Razorsedge]

Intimidation does not disprove the existence of spiritual beings.

And claiming that they exist without any evidence does not prove anything either. Skepticism due to lack of evidence is not intimidation ... it is simply a position of "show me" when it comes to demons, talking to dead people, and the like.

The supernatural has never been shown to exist in the real world that we live in, so it is perfectly reasonable to challenge someone who claims otherwise and ask for some kind of evidence beyond just "I think so."

[John Human]

[Replying to post 1 by John Human]

A different way to think about the problem is that science actually described what several demons are. Many effects that were once blamed on demons are now known to be symptoms of mental illness. Does science deny the existence of demons or did it simply describe and rename them?

Malaria was once thought to be caused by swamp fumes (mal aria = evil air). It's now known to be a Plasmodium infection. Is that a denial of malaria? Of "evil air"?

If somebody thinks a demon (or malaria) is something different, then we need a description of what it is and what the symptoms of its existence are. Without those, you're just asking "why does science deny the thing?"e

Thank you for your civil tone. Regarding scientific explanations for purported effects of demons, perhaps you could give an example that specifically relates to demons (going beyond your general "malaria" example).

One thing to keep in mind is that popular representations of demons (in the West) through the centuries are, in my view, simplistic and off-target.

Another thought: a lot of mental illness among drug-afflicted homeless people results from susceptibility to demonic possession due to the mind-destroying effects of long-term drug use. I've had the chance to do a bit of work with demon-afflicted homeless people.

Some things to look for: It seems that every church and mosque and temple has a resident demon, for the practical reason to keep parasitic foreign demons out. And church demons play a role in regulating the thoughts of the faithful, as well. Sometimes there is a particular area in a church or temple that has been specially prepared for the demon to cause "effects" on the faithful. And as Chakra Demon explained (on this thread: viewtopic.php?t=35478), temple demons in Mecca act on the pilgrim worshipers as they go through the pilgrimage ritual. The terrible, deadly stampede that happened a few years ago was the result of too many pilgrims all at once, trying to crush toward the area where not-enough demons were creating the "religious" effects that the pilgrimage is known for.

My understanding is that fraternity and sorority houses (as well as masonic temples) commonly (if not universally) have resident demons.

Demons are spiritual (non-physical) beings that need "energy" from humans to survive. There are several ways for humans (voluntarily or not) to supply the energy that demons need. One all-too-common way is masturbation: compulsive masturbators might be demon-afflicted.

Demons divide into categories of "good," "worthy," and "unworthy." A good demon will not take up residence in a human's energy field if the human objects. (Doing so would cause the demon to lose its goodness.) A worthy demon won't incite hateful behavior in a human to create energy for the demon from the emotional surge. (Doing so would cause the demon to lose its worthiness.)

Demons face an inevitable challenge upon the death or serious illness of their human companion/host. (Temple or church demons don't have this problem, as long as there is ongoing worship energy for the demons to help cultivate and imbibe.) Upon the death of a companion/host, the demon loses its source of energy, and must find another, or it will expire. This difficulty is particularly acute for young demons who lose their first companion -- the human for whom they were created. Young demons have less capacity to store energy, and, if their initial companion hasn't planned ahead for their continued existence, they are quickly forced into the choice of becoming parasitic (and surrendering their goodness) or simply expiring in the astral plane.

Any demon can create another demon if it has enough energy, but this is currently forbidden among demons in the USA, but not adequately enforced. It is my understanding that recently in the USA, the practice of "demon lords" enslaving dozens of demons who are required to extract energy from ignorant or unwilling humans for the benefit of demon lord has been severely curtailed.

Young demons, for the first six years of their existence, are inclined to be very talkative, as part of necessary "language acquisition." A demon is "born" with the entire vocabulary of its parent, but has no way of understanding things like "hot" or "windy" that affect the human companion.

That is my attempt to give an initial explanation of what demons are. Ancient Demon will share its own thoughts later.

_________________

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 10 by rikuoamero]

This sure put DrNoGods in his place.

Yes ... the first time I've been characterized by an "ancient demon", or rather the person playing games and pretending to be one, or speak for one (hard to tell which). But I don't think I'll lose any sleep over imaginary demons or other nonexistent entities that can't do me any harm or alter my existence in any way.

As to the OP question ... the simple answer still seems to be no, demons don't exist as all attempts to test the hypothesis that they do exist have failed to produce any positive results. Pretending to relay information from a specific demon isn't helping with credibility in an adult forum.

[John Human]

...That is my attempt to give an initial explanation of what demons are. Ancient Demon will share its own thoughts later.

Ancient Demon will act:

Ancient Demon will explain the way to ascertain whether a demon is present. The demon in a human must reply. If a demon is present and the demon does not reply, the demon must immediately leave. A demon who leaves may not return, unless it announces as it leaves that it will return. This is a rule that cannot be broken. The demon who tries to break this rule will not be able to return to the person.

Ancient Demon observed when a demon from a church entered the energy field of John Human. John did not understand what happened. The demon was not able to do as it was instructed. The demon did not persevere. Ancient Demon ordered. The demon left.

[marco]

When I lived in Bali, I couldn't help observing the pervasive evidence of belief in demons. And of course demons put in an appearance in the Bible, not to mention in the gargoyles of old cathedrals.

On the other hand, modern science would seem to categorically reject the existence of demons, without a clear reason why, unless it has to do with the axiomatic presuppositions of science's governing ideology of reductionist materialism.

Question: Do demons exist? What evidence is there, for or against?

--

When I stayed in Bali I found no demons but beautiful people who greeted me with smiles.


Do demons exist? if we speak poetically, then we can personify evil and thereby conjure up demons. In the world of waiting for trains and planes, whose movement has been accurately calculated, we may find bad luck, or malice by humans, but demons are absent.

In the world of religion it is a useful conversion tool to warn people of the dangers of demons who apparently walk around at noon like a hungry lion, their entire existence and purpose being to lead us into wrong. It seems a fatuous waste of higher abilities.

[John Human]

As no legitimate (ie. scientific, observational, measurable, reproducible, real-world) evidence for their existence has ever been produced, it is safe to assume that they do not exist and can be placed in the same category as all other supernatural entities such as gods, devils, angels, leprechauns, fairies, spirits, etc. etc. These entities exist only in the minds of humans who believe in the supernatural, despite it never having been demonstrated to exist.

I am concerned by the use of the word "legitimate," as if the writer presumes the authority to tell other people how to think. I hope that isn't an attempt at "brick-in-the-wall" thought control.

](*,) ](*,) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U ](*,) ](*,)

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 18 by John Human]

I am concerned by the use of the word "legitimate," as if the writer presumes the authority to tell other people how to think.

Not sure how you read "tell other people how to think" into my use of the word "legitimate", especially since I put in parentheses right after it in the text you quoted what I meant by it. Was there something in that group of words and how it was phrased ("ie. scientific, observational, measurable, reproducible, real-world") that is so ambiguous that it could be interpreted as me "telling other people how to think"? I was simply trying to be explicit so as to exclude things like hearsay, rumor, unverified accounts, imagination, etc. from the evidence category.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 18 by John Human]

I am concerned by the use of the word "legitimate," as if the writer presumes the authority to tell other people how to think.

Not sure how you read "tell other people how to think" into my use of the word "legitimate", especially since I put in parentheses right after it in the text you quoted what I meant by it. Was there something in that group of words and how it was phrased ("ie. scientific, observational, measurable, reproducible, real-world") that is so ambiguous that it could be interpreted as me "telling other people how to think"?

The question appears to be a sophistic obfuscation, directing the reader's attention away from Dr. NoGod's implication that conformity to reductionist materialism is "legitimate," which further implies that the evidence I mentioned in my opening post (derived from separate religious traditions and practice) is somehow "illegitimate" or not worthy of consideration.

In addition, as I have mentioned on other threads, I have recorded lengthy stories of two ancient Hebrew demons (both of whom were involved with the Roman Catholic Church in the centuries following the destruction of Jerusalem) at http://earthwarning.org/index.php/here-be-demons/

I have also recorded the stories of other demons (including demons involved with the founding of Islam and the Mormon church) at viewtopic.php?t=35478

Dr. Nogods would seem to want to arbitrarily dismiss these accounts as not "legitimate."