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?

--

[Diagoras]

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

Agreed?

If I’m following your argument correctly, then angels and demons are labels for things that are happening inside people’s brains? Is that it?

I would agree.

[Jose Fly]

You quoted it, did you not?

FYI, quoting a statement is not the same as making the statement.

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...

Because, being supernatural, they can do anything, including interacting in ways that are impossible to detect.

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.

So the labels "demons and angels" are neither accurate nor necessary. Just say "voices".

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.

You're taking the analogy far too literally. It's simply a means to illustrate the distinction between studying "angels and demons" and studying "voices" that some believe are angels and demons.

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?

No, because there's no need to use the terms "angels and demons".

[Clownboat]

No, because there's no need to use the terms "angels and demons".

It's a war with words going on. The terms angels and demons are being used, but what is meant is not angels nor demons but something else. In this case, the accurate word 'voices' is being used to mean angels and demons. Why the deception is what I don't understand. Why not say what is meant?

In another thread, to create something is just to give it a name. Such deception I say.

[Jose Fly]

No, because there's no need to use the terms "angels and demons".

It's a war with words going on. The terms angels and demons are being used, but what is meant is not angels nor demons but something else. In this case, the accurate word 'voices' is being used to mean angels and demons. Why the deception is what I don't understand. Why not say what is meant?

In another thread, to create something is just to give it a name. Such deception I say.

Bingo!

I'd like to comment more on this, but I'm very reluctant to discuss mental health issues in forums with members who have those issues. And given the conflation between "angels and demons" and "thoughts in one's head", it's far too easy for comments about angels and demons to be construed as slights against people suffering from mental health issues.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #562]

FYI, quoting a statement is not the same as making the statement.

FYI I never stated that it did.
I think it is similar, depending on why one quotes whatever they quote, which is usually to help make a point they think is relevant to their argument.
Why did you use the quote?

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...

Because, being supernatural, they can do anything, including interacting in ways that are impossible to detect.

1: If they exist, then they must be natural - not supernatural...

2: If they interact in ways which are impossible to detect, then what are we talking about?

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.

So the labels "demons and angels" are neither accurate nor necessary. Just say "voices".

If we are just referring to 'voices' how to we reconcile the different types of voices which people say that they hear?

You're taking the analogy far too literally. It's simply a means to illustrate the distinction between studying "angels and demons" and studying "voices" that some believe are angels and demons.

Why didn't you say that rather than defer to an analogy?
It appears to me that demons and angels are also analogy's for nice or nasty voices, but I might be incorrect and they may actually exist as invisible entities which are as natural as anything else in the universe.
What about "studying voices that manifest as nice or nasty that some personalities claim to hear"?

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?

No, because there's no need to use the terms "angels and demons".

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 'nice and nasty voices' really are, they are natural.

Agreed?

[William]

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

Agreed?

If I’m following your argument correctly, then angels and demons are labels for things that are happening inside people’s brains? Is that it?

I would agree.

I don't know whether brains are the source of the voices, or not.
I do know that our bodies senses ordinarily only experience a slim section of the overall spectrum of what exists, so it might be that some brains are picking up signals that are actually there and naturally so - but those signals are ordinarily outside of the sensory perceptions of most humans. [which is why I am using the word 'ordinarily']

This can explain why certain drugs that have been developed can act as buffers to help the brain not pick up signals which ordinarily aren't noticed/experienced. These drugs are not acting as a cure [as some have claimed] but they do allow for individuals to have a more ordinary experience, as long as those individuals continue to take the drugs...

[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

Do you believe the sun orbits the earth?

No, I don't. I believe fundamentalism fueled by inerrancy doctrine is locked into the verse that say it's the sun that rises, sets, and races back around again. The story in Joshua of the sun standing still is the prime proof text

Ken Hamm at Answers in Genesis loves to go on so about inerrant and infallibility with regrds to the genesis creation account, but meh, science proved scripture wrong regarding the passages the earth and flat and egocentricity

Google is your friend, christian man, but don't ask ?'s you don't want thto answer to

[Jose Fly]

Why did you use the quote?

IIRC, to reply to it.

1: If they exist, then they must be natural - not supernatural...

Not according to the people who believe in them.

2: If they interact in ways which are impossible to detect, then what are we talking about?

That's precisely the point.

If we are just referring to 'voices' how to we reconcile the different types of voices which people say that they hear?

That's not something I'm qualified to speak to.

Why didn't you say that rather than defer to an analogy?

I did, right before I made the analogy.

What about "studying voices that manifest as nice or nasty that some personalities claim to hear"?

My understanding is that researchers have been doing that for some time now.

Whatever 'nice and nasty voices' really are, they are natural.

Agreed?

Sure.

[Jose Fly]

Do you believe the sun orbits the earth?

No, I don't.

On what basis? Have you watched the earth make a complete orbit around the sun, or reproduced it in a lab?

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #568]

1: If they exist, then they must be natural - not supernatural...

Not according to the people who believe in them.

Rather, [more truthfully] "Not according to some of the people who believe in them."

Neither Carl Jung or Eleanor Longden considered the voices to being supernatural. They do not label the voices 'angels/demons' but clearly they understand the connection has to do with whether the voices are nasty or nice and in that, realize where notions of angels and demons are sourced...in the actual expressions of the voices.

2: If they interact in ways which are impossible to detect, then what are we talking about?

That's precisely the point.

No. It is not a 'point' at all. It is precisely a question.

If we are just referring to 'voices' how to we reconcile the different types of voices which people say that they hear?

That's not something I'm qualified to speak to.

Why not? You appear to be sensible and intelligent. What else qualifies someone to speak to anything which occurs in this universe, such as the hearing of different types of voices?

Whatever 'nice and nasty voices' really are, they are natural.

Agreed?

Sure.

With that, is there anything else to add which you think might still be able to be used to try and argue against my position on the matter?