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?

--

[William]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #550]

Q: "How has it ever been established that our 'good' or 'evil' thoughts do NOT come from demons or angels?"

It might be helpful to re-read posts 4, 8 & 9 (page 1) which already addressed questions similar to what you are asking.

When you say 'addressed' are you meaning 'established'?

For example, the questions on how the Great Pyramids were actually built, and even when they were actually built have been addressed through the answers of various theories, none of which have been established as being true.

I ask, because questions can be addressed while still not providing answers which clearly show that that the answers have established anything, in the way of putting this baby to bed.

I ask because, if you are meaning something else, would there be any reason for me to view the posts you mentioned?

[Ozzy_O]

Can you give us the link to the peer reviewed science on the big bang, which was observed, measured, reproduced, in a real world laboratory?

Can you do the same for the earth orbiting the sun? Where has that been reproduced in a lab?

It hasn't.....and the Bible says the sun orbits the earth, so there's that

[benchwarmer]

Can you give us the link to the peer reviewed science on the big bang, which was observed, measured, reproduced, in a real world laboratory?

Can you do the same for the earth orbiting the sun? Where has that been reproduced in a lab?

It hasn't.....and the Bible says the sun orbits the earth, so there's that

Chapter and verse please? I mean, it would be cool to find yet another thing the Bible got wrong without reinterpreting it to make it fit back into known science.

If that's really in the Bible as you say, then you've just found one more problem.

[JoeyKnothead]

How has it ever been established that out thoughts do NOT come from demons or angels, given the subject remains open and questions such as "Do demons exist? Can that be tested?" derive?

That's not how this works. The person making the positive claim (in this case, thoughts come from demons and angels) has the responsibility to support the claim. It does not fall on everyone else to prove it false. If the positive claim isn't supported, it can be summarily dismissed.

As long as you've participated in this debate forum, I'm surprised you don't know that.

Re that, with both Joey's testimony and Tam's, in both cases the information is that the voices heard are not recognized simply as being from ones own thought/self - but are distinct as in 'other' - so the answer is not simply "good thoughts/bad thoughts" = "my thoughts which I generated for myself.", thus - more study is required...

How did they establish the thoughts as not being their own? Via an analytical process? A medical diagnosis? Something else?

I'm susceptible to hearing voices due to faulty processes in my brain. I suffer schizophrenia, but thankfully have meds to help with the condition.

I no more attribute these voices to demons than I attribute toothaches to the antitoothfairy.

That said, William is kinda right about how I perceive these voices as being 'other', where I sometimes look around expecting to find the speaker. Therapy has helped a lot in being able to more quickly and accurately recognize when the voices ain't from without, but from within. And of course the meds help in tamping em down - but schizophrenics are kinda famous for stopping their meds after a period of relative quiet. It's kinda why I'm on a type of house arrest.

[Jose Fly]

I will edit what I wrote, to now read;

External or internal, it appears angels and demons can exhibit both internally and externally, according to unsupported statements folk make about these.

Having given the statement maximum clarity, should we agree now that the statement needn't be summarily dismissed?

If the statement is made without any supporting evidence, it can indeed be summarily dismissed.

Hard to say.
Perhaps develop some way in which invisible and intelligent and intentional entitles [which is what we are told are an attributes of angels and demons] can communicate with us and explain their relationship to us?

Any ideas re that approach?

Nope. Gods and other magical beings do not lend themselves to objective study (as they are typically characterized by those who believe in them).

What do you mean by 'magic'? Tricks of illusion? Fairy farts?

I would have to know more, before I could attempt to answer your question.

Supernatural.

[Jose Fly]

Can you give us the link to the peer reviewed science on the big bang, which was observed, measured, reproduced, in a real world laboratory?

Can you do the same for the earth orbiting the sun? Where has that been reproduced in a lab?

It hasn't.....and the Bible says the sun orbits the earth, so there's that

Do you believe the sun orbits the earth?

[Jose Fly]

How has it ever been established that out thoughts do NOT come from demons or angels, given the subject remains open and questions such as "Do demons exist? Can that be tested?" derive?

That's not how this works. The person making the positive claim (in this case, thoughts come from demons and angels) has the responsibility to support the claim. It does not fall on everyone else to prove it false. If the positive claim isn't supported, it can be summarily dismissed.

As long as you've participated in this debate forum, I'm surprised you don't know that.

Re that, with both Joey's testimony and Tam's, in both cases the information is that the voices heard are not recognized simply as being from ones own thought/self - but are distinct as in 'other' - so the answer is not simply "good thoughts/bad thoughts" = "my thoughts which I generated for myself.", thus - more study is required...

How did they establish the thoughts as not being their own? Via an analytical process? A medical diagnosis? Something else?

I'm susceptible to hearing voices due to faulty processes in my brain. I suffer schizophrenia, but thankfully have meds to help with the condition.

I no more attribute these voices to demons than I attribute toothaches to the antitoothfairy.

That said, William is kinda right about how I perceive these voices as being 'other', where I sometimes look around expecting to find the speaker. Therapy has helped a lot in being able to more quickly and accurately recognize when the voices ain't from without, but from within. And of course the meds help in tamping em down - but schizophrenics are kinda famous for stopping their meds after a period of relative quiet. It's kinda why I'm on a type of house arrest.

Thanks for explaining. I wish you all the best.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #555]

I will edit what I wrote, to now read;

External or internal, it appears angels and demons can exhibit both internally and externally, according to unsupported statements folk make about these.

Having given the statement maximum clarity, should we agree now that the statement needn't be summarily dismissed?

If the statement is made without any supporting evidence, it can indeed be summarily dismissed.

I am not arguing that you statement is untrue. Obviously anything can be dismissed simply by the being the one to make that call.

My argument is that - for me - I don't see it as a sensible option to take, given the variables which have yet to be established as true.

So until then, I see no point in announcing they are NOT true, and remain open to the evidence either way.
Thus, more study is required...since the opportunity to do so is made available for me to do so.

More study would be required.

How?

Hard to say.
Perhaps develop some way in which invisible and intelligent and intentional entitles [which is what we are told are an attributes of angels and demons] can communicate with us and explain their relationship to us?

Any ideas re that approach?

Nope. Gods and other magical beings do not lend themselves to objective study (as they are typically characterized by those who believe in them).

Angels and Demons - as they are typically characterized by those who believe in them - do lend themselves to such opportunity to study them - if indeed they exist.

Joey Knothead has studied the subject and accepts/concludes that Angels and Demons are figments of imagination due to brain disfunction which can be alleviated with the right mix of meds and that sometimes folk in that situation will succumb to the temptation of forgoing meds in exchange for more of the alternate experience. In Joey's case, the "demon-ish figment of imagination" returns and continues with its cowardly assaults.

Eleanor Longden has studied the subject and accepts/concludes that voices [Angels and Demons] are aspects of her overall psyche - are her own voices which are relayed to her as 'others' in that while they might present as 'others' they have been identified as 'all the same' in the context of what makes Eleanor Longden the human personality that she is.
In her case, she opted to face her demons, and eventually won them over and they changed the way in which they interreacted with her - essentially becoming her close friends - essential Eleanor became a close friend of her overall understanding of 'self'.

Before either Joey knothead or Eleanor Longden were born, Carl Jung had already mapped out a feasible explanation for a phenomena which has always existed 'alongside' human evolution...that there is a hidden aspect to the overall human condition which Carl Jung saw as a collective of personalities which he viewed as a collective of the one - overall personality. He referred to this/these as "four main archetypes"

All in all, showing us evidence of identifiable aspects of the individual human being, which has largely been hidden from the conscious awareness of human beings since the dawn of the human epoch.

What we call these identified things is besides the point re our ability to connect with them by somehow forming/opening channels of communication with them, as a mean of more fully understanding our self, in consequence.

What do you mean by 'magic'? Tricks of illusion? Fairy farts?

I would have to know more, before I could attempt to answer your question.

Supernatural.

Do you think that the discovery of the existence of deeper conscious aspects of the human psyche, has to be placed under the banner of 'supernatural'?

Why?

[Jose Fly]

I am not arguing that you statement is untrue.

The problem here is that I've not made that statement. All I've done is note that "has anyone shown they don't exist" is a logical fallacy, empty assertions can be summarily dismissed, and the supernatural is not amendable to objective testing.

So until then, I see no point in announcing they are NOT true, and remain open to the evidence either way.
Thus, more study is required...since the opportunity to do so is made available for me to do so.

Ok.

Angels and Demons - as they are typically characterized by those who believe in them - do lend themselves to such opportunity to study them - if indeed they exist.

Nope.

Joey Knothead has studied the subject and accepts/concludes that Angels and Demons are figments of imagination due to brain disfunction which can be alleviated with the right mix of meds and that sometimes folk in that situation will succumb to the temptation of forgoing meds in exchange for more of the alternate experience. In Joey's case, the "demon-ish figment of imagination" returns and continues with its cowardly assaults.

Eleanor Longden has studied the subject and accepts/concludes that voices [Angels and Demons] are aspects of her overall psyche - are her own voices which are relayed to her as 'others' in that while they might present as 'others' they have been identified as 'all the same' in the context of what makes Eleanor Longden the human personality that she is.
In her case, she opted to face her demons, and eventually won them over and they changed the way in which they interreacted with her - essentially becoming her close friends - essential Eleanor became a close friend of her overall understanding of 'self'.

Before either Joey knothead or Eleanor Longden were born, Carl Jung had already mapped out a feasible explanation for a phenomena which has always existed 'alongside' human evolution...that there is a hidden aspect to the overall human condition which Carl Jung saw as a collective of personalities which he viewed as a collective of the one - overall personality. He referred to this/these as "four main archetypes"

All in all, showing us evidence of identifiable aspects of the individual human being, which has largely been hidden from the conscious awareness of human beings since the dawn of the human epoch.

What we call these identified things is besides the point re our ability to connect with them by somehow forming/opening channels of communication with them, as a mean of more fully understanding our self, in consequence.

Those are examples of studying the human brain, consciousness, psyche, etc. They are not studies of actual angels and demons, but are instead studies of what some people mistakenly believe are demons and angels. That's an important distinction.

It's like if someone said "I'm studying bigfoot" but it turned out they've been studying bigfoot hoaxes. The distinction between "studying an actual bigfoot" and "studying bigfoot hoaxes" is rather significant.

Do you think that the discovery of the existence of deeper conscious aspects of the human psyche, has to be placed under the banner of 'supernatural'?

Why?

No, because AFAIK it's all natural.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #559]

The problem here is that I've not made that statement.

You quoted it, did you not?

But I most certainly made no statement, as you quoting of the saying appears to imply. I just asked a question.

Angels and Demons - as they are typically characterized by those who believe in them - do lend themselves to such opportunity to study them - if indeed they exist.

Nope.

Well "if indeed they exist" why do you think that they are not able to interact, and from that interaction, data produced, and from that data produced, able to be studied?

You have not given a reason...or if you did, I have missed it...

Those are examples of studying the human brain, consciousness, psyche, etc. They are not studies of actual angels and demons, but are instead studies of what some people mistakenly believe are demons and angels. That's an important distinction.

Agreed. The idea of 'demons and angels' stems from putting costumes on the voices which are either 'nice' or 'nasty'.
We can understand that part. What hasn't been explained is why the voices are nasty, nice, helpful, hindrance et al...except re the examples given, through experiences had.

The explanations appear to be the integrated re Carl Jung and Eleanor Longden but not so much re Joey's.

It's like if someone said "I'm studying bigfoot" but it turned out they've been studying bigfoot hoaxes. The distinction between "studying an actual bigfoot" and "studying bigfoot hoaxes" is rather significant.

The analogy you are using is crude. It implies that a hoax is being performed by the brains of Joey, Eleanor and Carl, and that the voices are not real, and cannot be healthily interacted with.
"It is a hoax" may be how Joeys sees his experiences, but most obviously Eleanor does not, and nor does Carl, in his study of the phenomena.

Therefore we cannot simply conclude anything like a "hoax" has taken/is taking place. The "footprints" [voices] could be aspects of the overall psyche of which the primary consciousness of the individual is largely unaware of, as per what Eleanor and Carl have to say about this phenomena, rather than some agency wearing bigfoot slip-on's and stomping around in the fields of a personalities mind set.

More study is required.

Do you think that the discovery of the existence of deeper conscious aspects of the human psyche, has to be placed under the banner of 'supernatural'?

Why?

No, because AFAIK it's all natural.

Therefore we can leave that on the table - whatever these voices are and whyever they present to the individual as they do, is a natural thing and both Eleanor and Carl explain it in that light.

Whatever 'angels and demons' really are, they are natural.

Agreed?