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]

William: All I am interested in regarding the injection of the idea of John Human as a medium for The Ancient Demon [TAG] is whether TAG requires me to believe that John Human is to be trusted as TAGs mouthpiece.

What assurances can TAG provide which will help us know that TAG isn't just an invented sock-puppet saying whatever words John Human places in its 'mouth'?

Ancient Demon:

All this would seem to be inappropriate.

How can anyone have a discussion with you if you cannot participate without having this victim mentality you display on virtually every one of your posts?

That question contains an embedded false assumption, clearly demonstrating your own lack of good faith, and bringing to mind your offensive behavior on rikuoamero's "I'm done" thread (at viewtopic.php?t=35505&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60), where you ignored my rebuttal and actually had the audacity to pretend that I hadn't made one, as you taunted me and compared Christians to abettors of bank robbery and murder. You continue to make a mockery of this forum's pretense to "civil and respectful" debate. Please stay away from me.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 81 by John Human]

First off, stay on topic. Second off, no insulting please, we're having a discussion. Third, you lack any ground to try and persuade others to disengage from the discussion. If you are so inclined, you are free to disengage any time you want. However, your attempt to strongarm others by making calls for moderator action, and your attempt to categorize practically every response as a personal attack and show of bad faith means the discussion cannot proceed further. You are disrupting, perhaps intentionally, when this is the 6th or so attempt by participants to get you to provide verification for your claims. Please consider the means with which to progress this debate without resorting to methods that circumvent the debate format. So long as you are posting here, you are bound by the rules of engagement.

It is at this time I assert that, should you fail to provide a rational argument for means with which to verify the existence of demons in your next post, that you are in fact not going to do so at all. I predict you might instead put on what amounts to "theatrics", which I will personally take as a concession and failure to meet the requirements of the discussion to back up your assertions when challenged.

Please, prove me wrong.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 81 by John Human]

However, your attempt to strongarm others by making calls for moderator action, and your attempt to categorize practically every response as a personal attack and show of bad faith means the discussion cannot proceed further.

I think it is fair to say that repeated concocted attributions and misrepresentations, showing bad faith, means that the discussion cannot proceed further.

With that said, perhaps somebody else, with a rigorously skeptical attitude but without the inclination toward objectionable behavior, could pick up one or more threads of this discussion. If anyone is inclined to do so, I would caution them about Neatras's repeated misrepresentations about my so-called "claims."

_________________

[mgb]

"Demon" and "Mental Illness" are labels for the same thing. What is mental illness? A rose by any other name is still a rose...

[otseng]

That question contains an embedded false assumption, clearly demonstrating your own lack of good faith, and bringing to mind your offensive behavior on rikuoamero's "I'm done" thread (at viewtopic.php?t=35505&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60), where you ignored my rebuttal and actually had the audacity to pretend that I hadn't made one, as you taunted me and compared Christians to abettors of bank robbery and murder. You continue to make a mockery of this forum's pretense to "civil and respectful" debate. Please stay away from me.

Moderator Comment

If someone violates the rule, just report it. Do not comment on it and do not play the moderator.

17. Do not comment on any rule infractions made by others. Ignore any rule violations made by others and only respond by reporting it to the moderators.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[John Human]

William: From my perspective it is simple. If one is going to claim that one speaks on behalf of an invisible entity in a thread one creates for that purpose, and the thread title asks "Do demons exist? Can that be tested?" and I reply what I think in Post 41 @ of my understanding of the Metaphysical creatures, the medium at first ignores my post altogether, so I ask if TAG can provide its thoughts about my post @ and am informed by you - the medium - that "Ancient Demon has nothing to say at this time."

Now one does not know from that whether the medium is therefore a charlatan, but clearly he appears to be resisting being cooperative in relation to testing, which tends to tell the tester than something is hiding from the truth.


William, your statement here seems to be based on a horrible misconception. You falsely assumed that I created this thread for the purpose of speaking on behalf of an invisible entity.

This thread was NOT created to showcase Ancient Demon or to speak on its behalf. At the beginning, I had no intention of bringing Ancient Demon into the discussion, but was aware of the possibility that Ancient Demon might want to respond to whatever others might be inclined to say.

Ancient Demon first "spoke" publicly on this thread (with my help, of course) in post #6, in reply to Dr. NoGods, who tried to impose on the discussion an idiosyncratic view regarding "legitimate" (his word) evidence. Ancient Demon replied as follows:

Ancient Demon will tell the man Dr. NoGods about reductionist materialism. Ancient Demon was in Rome. Ancient Demon did not involve itself in the debate over the new science. The doctrine was of Venetian origin. Ancient Demon was confident that this doctrine would not become prevalent, because the doctrine was absolutely preposterous. Every human has the capacity to 'hear.' The only way this new doctrine could become prevalent was for people to arbitrarily deny this capacity to 'hear.'

Ancient Demon saw that slowly happen. The new doctrine was like a disease, that slowly spread from one university to another. The manner in which it spread was the employment of new professors. The leaders of the university were always needing money. Money was offered. The condition was simple: Hire a professor of the new science who loudly denied the capacity to 'hear.' This capacity became re-defined as insanity.

Ancient Demon observed the development of awareness of the spread of this new doctrine. Venice was the root. Venice did not propagate the new doctrine inside Venice until very late. First was England. Then France. Germany was a battleground, with Leibniz and followers resisting as defenders of the science of the Renaissance. The new science did not complete the domination of Germany until the unification of Germany led to the crushing of the Renaissance in Bavaria.

Ancient Demon observed the decline in awareness among bishops. Even bishops who were aware did not openly act as they were. They knew that this part of human nature had been declared out. The new way was able to sever the old ability of humans to communicate with each other using the mind alone. At the highest level of the Church, this ability exists, and this ability is cultivated in monasteries. Ancient Demon is aware that monasteries are slowly disappearing. However, in recent decades, growing awareness in the West of Eastern religion has led to renewal of the ability to communicate using the mind alone in people associated with the New Age. Ancient Demon is aware that this ability also exists among ordinary people who are careful to not discuss or admit. They tyranny of the new science must be defended by the watchers in the universities. The man formerly seen as Dr. NoGods was one such watcher.

Ancient Demon later "spoke" in post #11, sharing an observation.

In post #16, Ancient Demon shared its thought on how to observe whether a demon was present.

In post #24, Ancient Demon claimed that the person posting as Dr. NoGods has changed.

In post #28, Ancient Demon suggested that, if someone wanted to try to communicate with a demon but felt intimidated by Ancient Demon, one of the "young demons" might be able to communicate with such a person.

In post #41, William shared some speculations about the origin of demons, together with other issues that were perhaps interesting but off-topic. I declined to reply, and Ancient Demon did not indicate any wish to reply.

In post #52, William reiterated his request that Ancient Demon share its thoughts about William's post #41.

In response to this, I asked Ancient Demon if it wanted to "speak," but it indicated that it had nothing to say at this time about what William wrote. I reported Ancient Demon's disinclination to speak in post #53.

William, in my view, your expectation that Ancient Demon respond to your request for communication regarding an off-on-a-tangent topic was inappropriate. From what you later said (quoted at the beginning above), it seems clear that your expectation stemmed from a serious misunderstanding about the purpose of the thread.
_________________

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 86 by John Human]

From the OP (bold mine):

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.

The clear reason why is not your "unless" statement after the bolded text, but rather another general requirement of science that there be some supporting empirical evidence. So far you've produced nothing in that category to address either part of the question you posed in the OP (ie. Do demons exist? Can that be tested?).

There remains no evidence for the existence of demons, and you've suggested no experiments to carry out to verify their existence.

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 84 by mgb]

At one time some people thought epileptics were demonically possessed!

[William]

@86

John Human: William, your statement here seems to be based on a horrible misconception.

William: Well - maybe use of the word 'horrible' is over-dramatizing...

John Human:You falsely assumed that I created this thread for the purpose of speaking on behalf of an invisible entity.

William: No I did not. I assumed nothing about the thread other than it was an opportunity for me to post my own understanding of how Angels and Demons are created...in relation to the properties of the Metaphysical Universe reacting to human belief systems.
However, as it eventuated that TAD (not "TAG" as I previously called) was injected into the thread, I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask out of interest, because I was wondering what Ancient Demon had to say about post#41
Then it was answered that TAD "has nothing to say at this time"...

John Human: This thread was NOT created to showcase Ancient Demon or to speak on its behalf. At the beginning, I had no intention of bringing Ancient Demon into the discussion, but was aware of the possibility that Ancient Demon might want to respond to whatever others might be inclined to say.

William: Well thanks for clarifying, John.

John Human: In post #41, William shared some speculations about the origin of demons, together with other issues that were perhaps interesting but off-topic. I declined to reply, and Ancient Demon did not indicate any wish to reply.

William: Yes, that appears to be how things unfolded...

John Human:In post #52, William reiterated his request that Ancient Demon share its thoughts about William's post #41.

In response to this, I asked Ancient Demon if it wanted to "speak," but it indicated that it had nothing to say at this time about what William wrote. I reported Ancient Demon's disinclination to speak in post #53.

William: Yes. Although there was no indication given by John that he had "asked Ancient Demon if it wanted to "speak". Crucially, if I had been informed of that, I would not have felt inclined to participate in the thread any longer.

John Human: William, in my view, your expectation that Ancient Demon respond to your request for communication regarding an off-on-a-tangent topic was inappropriate. From what you later said (quoted at the beginning above), it seems clear that your expectation stemmed from a serious misunderstanding about the purpose of the thread.

William: Like I wrote...had you - John - not passed on TADs message as an incomplete one, I - William - would have stopped participating.
If one is going to mediate between Demon and William, William requires FULL disclosure.
As it turned out, William 'tested the idea that TAD existed' and discovered that John Human didn't report to William the full extent of what TAD had told John Human.

To The Ancient Demon - I publicly apologize for misunderstanding TAD as being at fault. Clearly it was John Humans fault for not passing on the fullness of TADs replied to me.

That's me...I am 'out' of this thread discussion now, as it holds no further interest to me.

And John...If you want to discuss this any further, please do not PM me anymore.
I can be found Around The Camp Fire…Musing on The Ancient Demon

[Neatras]

Perhaps it would be of note that John has failed to present an empirical test for demonstrating the existence of demons in his last few posts and has exclusively resorted to a tactic of asserting bad faith acting or failure of others to comprehend his meaning. He could remedy this quickly by offering a valid testing method in his next post. I'll donate 1000 tokens if the test he provides meets scientific scrutiny. But I won't hold my breath. It would seem that John would forgo the empirical method and instead opt for... whatever he's been doing.

I would expect any person lacking in credibility and veracity to also fail to meet the challenge, as it happens. John could distinguish himself from that category at any time, if he only tried.