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?

--

[Purple Knight]

Test everything.

Perhaps, but what process can be used to test the existence of demons? Certainly not hooking up a polygraph which is designed to monitor heart rate and perspiration to a plant which has neither a heart rate nor perspires. What test can be designed which would test the existence of demons?

As Difflugia said, anything that would test the difference in expectations.

Start by asking the questions: What would we expect to find if demons? What would we expect if not demons?

I might not be the one to ask since I don't believe in demons. But if it's merely a destructive spiritual influence, we could use twins, exposing one twin to something said to be spiritually dangerous and attracting demons, and exposing the other twin to something of similar physical effect that is not said to be spiritually dangerous.

For example, let's say some priest has a box he says has a demon in it. One twin is exposed to that box, and the other is exposed to an identical box carved in a lab.

It's not a perfect control but twins are useful in testing almost everything related to the human condition.

[William]

[Replying to mgb in post #203]

Possession is more commonplace than you might imagine. It is when one spirit controls another. You probably pass such people on the street.

Hold up!

You were arguing that one spirit controls an avatar [body] but you are also arguing that one spirit controls another spirit.

It is the spirit that is controlled. But this control will be manifest in the body.

Okay so now we enter the realm of mindful/spiritual warfare - something I have recently been focusing upon and created a thread in relation to. I called the thread Earth and The Big Sky Battle where I quote a proclaiming follower of biblical Jesus as saying that the phrase I used ['engaging in warfare' ] "doesn't sit quite right" to said BJ follower, because "something just seems off" to her about that.
______________

The situation here on Earth could be viewed in relation to 'spirits involved in taking over other spirits' and in the sense of game-play - that is the object of said game the spirits are involved in, re said situation here on Earth.

For example, the spirits could be identified by the positions they hold and the activities they show themselves to be involved with as to whether they are 'demonic' or 'angelic' re the methodology they employ as recognizable opponents acting against each others positions.

In simplest terms 'atheists' and 'theists'.

But it is no clear cut thing as to which 'house' [Atheism or Theism] represents the 'angels' and which represent the 'demons'.

One such very good example of the battle that is actually being fought, is Sceptics verses Scientists who do not support the materislist world view.

It is an mp3 podcast called The Wikipedia Problem, Hollyhock, July 2014

[Difflugia]

That depends on what you mean by evidence. If you are talking about scientific evidence then obviously this falls outside the realm of science (not below it, outside it).

The only thing that's "outside" the realm of science is speculation unencumbered by evidence of any kind. "Evidence" here is anything at all that could distinguish one explanation from another.

But evidence can come by way of argument.

No it can't. If you have no evidence, you can speculate all you want, but that doesn't somehow create evidence.

What do you think evil in the world is? Where does it come from? Science does not explain it.

"Cars operate on the principles of internal combustion and magic."

"Do you have any evidence that magic is involved?"

"What even is evidence, man?" (stares wistfully into the middle distance)

It is not simply about 'evidence', it is about what different people are willing to accept as evidence.

Just calling something "evidence" doesn't change the definition that the rest of us use. If I hand you a bowl full of what I call chocolate ice cream, you'd be justifiably disappointed if it tasted, shall we say, completely different. I suspect that my protests about the concept of "ice cream" being subjective would fall upon deaf ears.

Where is the evidence that Rembrandt is a great painter? Someone can easily say he is a lousy painter. But these arguments don't resolve the question of whether he is a great painter. The question of his greatness cannot be resolved by 'evidence' or argument. None of this affects his greatness.

Define your terms and your problems of resolution go away. The reason that the "question of greatness" can't be resolved isn't because of lack of evidence, but the vagueness of "greatness." It's equally difficult to resolve whether Rembrandt was a large painter, even though size is completely quantifiable. The problem is that "large" is relative to something that hasn't been defined.

It's not an accident that many apologetic arguments rely on vagueness and equivocation.

To resolve questions like this requires a different approach. And it may be impossible to resolve them to everyone's satisfaction.

I'm rather dissatisfied that if I jump off the roof I'll hurt myself, but my dissatisfaction is my own problem rather than that of the physicists and doctors drawing upon scientific knowledge to tell me what will happen. Furthermore, my dissatisfaction doesn't affect whether or not I will be hurt by a long fall.

"What even is 'long,' man?" (stares wistfully into the middle distance)

[Tcg]

I'd also be interested in how you can support your specific claim that people can possess other people. Can you provide verifiable evidence for that or is it another in the eye of the beholder affair?

That depends on what you mean by evidence. If you are talking about scientific evidence then obviously this falls outside the realm of science (not below it, outside it). But evidence can come by way of argument. What do you think evil in the world is? Where does it come from? Science does not explain it. It is not simply about 'evidence', it is about what different people are willing to accept as evidence.

Where is the evidence that Rembrandt is a great painter? Someone can easily say he is a lousy painter. But these arguments don't resolve the question of whether he is a great painter. The question of his greatness cannot be resolved by 'evidence' or argument. None of this affects his greatness.

To resolve questions like this requires a different approach. And it may be impossible to resolve them to everyone's satisfaction.

I didn't ask any of those questions. I asked about your claim that people can possess other people. Your only response as to how one can know this is something along the lines of, you'll know it when you see it. Well, how? How does one know it when they see it? How could this "knowing" be based on anything other than a preconceived conviction that people can possess other people and when one sees something weird it is the result of a person possessing another person?


Tcg

[brunumb]

Scientifically tested? I guess not. But some people are visibly possessed.

What are the signs of demonic possession? How were the criteria used to distinguish between demonic possession and some other physiological condition established? What reliance is placed on ancient writings about demons based on nothing more than fear and misunderstanding due to lack of knowledge?

It seems to me that we have a lot of unverified claims when considering demonic possession. If someone is writhing on floor, frothing at the mouth and uttering profanities, is that a definitive sign? No doubt, back in primitive times when superstition was rampant, such events were probably attributed to demons. Nowadays it would more likely be attributed to an epileptic fit or some drug induced physiological reaction. Those who have invested in the existence of demons may be victims of confirmation bias when they allegedly see signs of demonic possession when such things may not even exist.

[William]

The same question applies to angels. Do they exist and can that be tested.

The argument for the existence of angels and demons is similar to the diagram below.

[Tcg]

Many atheists' arguments rely not on 'reason' or rationality, but on rhetorical force. Dawkins is notorious for this.

I wonder how this nugget got overlooked. It's hard to know where to begin in documenting how totally flawed it is. Starting at the end will work. It is claimed absent any evidence, which is a common theme in this thread, that Dawkins relies on "rhetorical force." Moving to the front of this flawed claim, we find an assertion concerning "many atheists." The bald assertion concerning only one atheist is supposedly the justification to support the bald assertion assigned to many atheists. Addressing the middle of this flawed claim is the statement that a particular group of folks don't rely "on 'reason' or rationality." There is not even a pretense of supporting this claim.

All we find is three bald assertions none of which are supported by even an attempt to supply verifiable evidence. Yes, we're back to considering evidence which some have attempted to give a nasty reputation to. The end of this assertion, the beginning, and the middle are all deeply flawed. It causes one to wonder what poor ol' Dawkins did to cause some to attempt, though unsuccessfully, to tarnish his reputation and by extension that of all atheists.


Tcg

[Miles]

Many atheists' arguments rely not on 'reason' or rationality, but on rhetorical force. Dawkins is notorious for this.

As opposed to the many theist arguments that don't rely on logic and evidence, but on deception, dishonesty, and ignorance.
Hovind is notorious for this.


.

[JoeyKnothead]

I snipped the post just to fuss on definitions...

demon definition: an evil spirit or devil, especially one thought to possess a person or act as a tormentor in hell.

Another definition...

Incapable of showing they speak truth: those who assert there's evil spirits and devils - and such can take "possession" of physical and / or animalian objects, only don't it beat all, they can't put em no truth to their claims.

Now we're stuck with another definition...

Liar: those who know danged well they can't put truth to their claims, but dangitall, they claim em anyway.

[JoeyKnothead]

Possession is more commonplace than you might imagine. It is when one spirit controls another. You probably pass such people on the street.

Not unlike how lying is more commonplace than we might know, and how sometimes it is, we might even encounter those liars on the premiere website dedicated to putting truth / lies / well about thats to religious claims.

Ain't it funny how that works?

I mean, I lie and say pretty thing loves me. But how come if she loves me so much, I gotta hop up and investigate every creak and groan of a house settling down in comfort? That ain't love, that's sacrificing me on account of I'm too dumb not to hop up and do it. I'm gonna get me axe murdered here one night, just cause I get to see her nekkid, if I can just make me back to bed alive.