Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[MonkeyFire]

Demons exist, but are not real.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Again these seem like mental health issues to me.

Can you explain what your success rate is like compared to antidepressants, anxiety meds and cognitive behavioural therapy? Have you done your double blind study to research the results?

In my opinion.

My success rate? I'm only still alive and sane because of depending on God.
Therapy was pointless, BTW.

 

[danieldemol]

Wasn't trying to provide "evidence"... was giving information as per the OP.

If you are really interested, go to a mission trip to India or some other place. If you aren't interested, just enjoy RF

Why would I have to go to India, are there no demons in Australia?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again these seem like mental health issues to me.

Can you explain what your success rate is like compared to antidepressants, anxiety meds and cognitive behavioural therapy? Have you done your double blind study to research the results?

In my opinion.

That raises an interesting question for me. Do you think some people would rather claim that demons are attacking them than admit they might be dealing with mental health issues?

I'll have to look and see if there is any published research on your questions. It would be interesting to see, but I doubt it will have much impact on those that have closed their minds to any other possibilities except those they want to believe.

 

[danieldemol]

That raises an interesting question for me. Do you think some people would rather claim that demons are attacking them than admit they might be dealing with mental health issues?

I could see that being more socially acceptable in certain circles, but I'm not sure.

I'll have to look and see if there is any published research on your questions. It would be interesting to see, but I doubt it will have much impact on those that have closed their minds to any other possibilities except those they want to believe.

You are correct, but it would be interesting to see the results anyway.

 

[Yazata]

Once you have experienced attacks from them, you don't doubt they exist.

Do I believe in demons?

I guess that people sometimes suffer from psychological difficulties that they might imagine as coming at them from outside and refer to as their "demons". Obsessions, compulsions, delusions, voices and whatever.

But actual sub-divine disembodied malevolent supernatural beings? I don't believe in that. (I don't believe in angels in that sense either.)

Is there evidence that demons exist?

Depends on how we define them. I'd say that there's lots of evidence throughout history, but it's typically highly subjective. That leaves the evidence ambiguous between psychological and non-psychological causes.

If I experienced a demonic attack, would I believe then?

I guess that I would, since I was describing what happened as a "demonic attack". (There's an implicit circularity there.) But the subjectivity and the ambiguity between psychological and objective causes would still remain.

 

[Yazata]

I believe that is a nomenclature problem. There is a concept of one's inner demons which is not another entity but is simply troubling thoughts. I believe some people think that the entities don't exist and all there is is troubling thoughts but that is an a priori position.

I don't believe that entity-demons exist, but I don't deny them exactly. That sounds like a contradictory position, but I don't think it is.

The thing is that I don't personally know of any convincing reason to believe in demonic entities. So they don't play any role in my worldview.

But reality is a big place and I'm only aware of a tiny portion of it. So the evidence that I'm aware of isn't the last word on what does and doesn't exist.

That being said, the evidence that I'm aware of does play a big role in what I happen to believe at the moment.

I just don't dismiss the possibility that reality can sometimes surprise me.

 

[Yazata]

I believe truthful testimony is evidence.

So do I.

But is the testimony simply truthful about the psychological state? Or is it also truthful about the entity that is being attributed as the cause of the psychological state?

 

[Muffled]

Are you sure?

Suppose I testify I saw Elvis alive. Would that be evidence that Elvis is alive?

Ciao

- viole

I believe it would be if you were truthful. I do not have great confidence that you will tell the truth.

 

[Muffled]

So do I.

But is the testimony simply truthful about the psychological state? Or is it also truthful about the entity that is being attributed as the cause of the psychological state?

I believe therein lies the problem. The person may think something is true so they are speaking the truth as far as they know it. Since psychologists have an obsession with psychology then they are biased towards a psychological explanation of the facts. Religious people who know God in Jesus identified demons as entities are more likely to be biased to believe demons are entities.

 

[Muffled]

Demons to me are just metaphors for some of the things that we can't explain so easily, but where much can be explained once one delves into the processes within the mind and how these so often can go wrong. And these processes can no doubt be mistaken for 'demons', but it is hardly a useful concept when health and ridding oneself of any issues should be the first consideration rather than being condemned by others, especially by those of the religious variety.

My wife's demon spoke Latin but my wife did not know any Latin. How can something come from the mind if it was never there to start with? Of course a demonic entity does explain that mystery.

 

[SkepticThinker]

i suppose you are right... then again, it isn't like we are looking for demons and then saying "Wait just a minute, let me go get my camera! Honey, run to the car, get the equipment and set up the lights. Pull out your phone, quick, I want everybody to see how I cast out demons so we can satisfy the curious".

No, actually, when the person was delivered they said, "Thank you! I felt it go out and now I am free". That was good enough for me.

You probably don't have a demon so I think you are fine

Ah, I see. So pretty much the way we figure out how anything actually exists in the world around us, doesn't apply when it comes to demons? Suddenly it's all down to personal experiences. "Good enough for me!' Well, that's a great way to find yourself believing in all sorts of false things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Unexplained depression, unreasonable panic attacks, irrational fears are some possible symptoms.

Those are called: Clinical depression or bipolar disorder (among others); panic disorder or anxiety disorder or PTSD (among others); phobias.

No demons are necessary to explain these things that we know occur in our brains and bodies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again these seem like mental health issues to me.

Can you explain what your success rate is like compared to antidepressants, anxiety meds and cognitive behavioural therapy? Have you done your double blind study to research the results?

In my opinion.

That's because they are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My success rate? I'm only still alive and sane because of depending on God.
Therapy was pointless, BTW.

Therapy saved my life. It's definitely not pointless, by definition.
And it has a much better demonstrable success rate than exorcisms and prayers.

 

[setarcos]

Is there any evidence the Invisible Pink Unicorn can't exist?

I am unaware of any except its own epistemological contradiction. And where does that leave us when considering the OP's question?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would ask you why you think your question might be absurd -clearly that's your leaning- and why in asking a question you "think" is absurd, you believe that you've evidenced its absurdity without proof?
There is a theory in science which considers any non-contradictory manifested concept within human consciousness to have a realistic existence within the multiverse.
Your question reflects the important considerations of evidence in epistemology. If the evidence is unique to the individual, how should others treat it in reality?
Besides the fact that being invisible and having a particular visible color is a contradiction, why do you think those Unicorn's can't exist? Is is simply because you haven't seen one and no one your aware of claims to have as well? What happens then when someone comes along and claims they have seen a Pink unicorn? Do you dismiss their claims based on proof or on your own biased experience?
No one has actually seen a subatomic particle and such entities remain theoretical constructs not facts. Yet the majority of us accept their reality based on the testimony of others interpreted evidence. Evidence most of us have never experienced nor are capable of interpreting if we did.
For all we know their may very well be subatomic invisible unicorns pulling invisible carts full of invisible forces manifesting real effects on our macroscopic level of experience.
Hundreds of people have experienced some kind of manifested "evil" in their lives according to how they've interpreted their experience. Whether they have interpreted their experience correctly is a matter up for discussion. I for one, in the absence of contradictory statements, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, shall remain open minded.
Again I ask, in the absence of proof why should we insist that "only" the minute experience of the reality we know now should dictate what's possible in the entirety of the reality we do not yet know?

 

[Sand Dancer]

I am unaware of any except its own epistemological contradiction. And where does that leave us when considering the OP's question?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would ask you why you think your question might be absurd -clearly that's your leaning- and why in asking a question you "think" is absurd, you believe that you've evidenced its absurdity without proof?
There is a theory in science which considers any non-contradictory manifested concept within human consciousness to have a realistic existence within the multiverse.
Your question reflects the important considerations of evidence in epistemology. If the evidence is unique to the individual, how should others treat it in reality?
Besides the fact that being invisible and having a particular visible color is a contradiction, why do you think those Unicorn's can't exist? Is is simply because you haven't seen one and no one your aware of claims to have as well? What happens then when someone comes along and claims they have seen a Pink unicorn? Do you dismiss their claims based on proof or on your own biased experience?
No one has actually seen a subatomic particle and such entities remain theoretical constructs not facts. Yet the majority of us accept their reality based on the testimony of others interpreted evidence. Evidence most of us have never experienced nor are capable of interpreting if we did.
For all we know their may very well be subatomic invisible unicorns pulling invisible carts full of invisible forces manifesting real effects on our macroscopic level of experience.
Hundreds of people have experienced some kind of manifested "evil" in their lives according to how they've interpreted their experience. Whether they have interpreted their experience correctly is a matter up for discussion. I for one, in the absence of contradictory statements, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, shall remain open minded.
Again I ask, in the absence of proof why should we insist that "only" the minute experience of the reality we know now should dictate what's possible in the entirety of the reality we do not yet know?

We can indirectly see subatomic particles, or see results of what they do. It would be nice if things like gods, pink unicorns, etc were objective things but they aren't, and that's okay, as long as people use them to benefit themselves and not pretend everyone must see them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I could see that being more socially acceptable in certain circles, but I'm not sure.


You are correct, but it would be interesting to see the results anyway.

I'm not sure either, but I think that it might be more socially acceptable with certain groups.

There seems to be a few articles on the value of prayer to individual recovery, but nothing comparing exorcism to psychotherapy. It's like studying out of body experiences I suppose. Lots of claims but not much evidence.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don’t want to make anyone here on RF mad, but just to think.
So here goes….

There are many people who say they speak with their loved ones who’ve died.
But since the Bible says “the dead know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5), and the dead go “down into silence” (Psalms 115:17; Cf. Genesis 3:19), they can’t be speaking with their loved ones. So, who are they speaking with, then?

Wicked spirits ie., “the angels that sinned” (2 Peter 2:4), those who “forsook their proper dwelling place” (Jude 1:6).
They are impostering these dead ones, like Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia ,
to promote the false idea that when people die, they go to “another realm.”
And most every religion has some similar mistaken belief, due to their influences.
I’m sure that every day, thousands of people - if not tens of thousands - are having genuine experiences, thinking they’re speaking with their loved ones who’ve died!

There’s your evidence…. Otherwise, you’d have to call everyone who has these experiences, either delusional or liars.
That’s naïve.

For those who think they’ve actually seen their dead loved ones: do you see them dressed in the clothes they used to wear? (Many do.) Now please answer… how do their clothes turn invisible, ie., into spirit?

I’m afraid it’s all a pretense, designed to keep people misled.

IMO.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don’t want to make anyone here on RF mad, but just to think.
So here goes….

There are many people who say they speak with their loved ones who’ve died.
But since the Bible says “the dead know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5), and the dead go “down into silence” (Psalms 115:17; Cf. Genesis 3:19), they can’t be speaking with their loved ones. So, who are they speaking with, then?

Wicked spirits ie., “the angels that sinned” (2 Peter 2:4), those who “forsook their proper dwelling place” (Jude 1:6).
They are impostering these dead ones, like Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia ,
to promote the false idea that when people die, they go to “another realm.”
And most every religion has some similar mistaken belief, due to their influences.
I’m sure that every day, thousands of people - if not tens of thousands - are having genuine experiences, thinking they’re speaking with their loved ones who’ve died!

There’s your evidence…. Otherwise, you’d have to call everyone who has these experiences, either delusional or liars.
That’s naïve.

For those who think they’ve actually seen their dead loved ones: do you see them dressed in the clothes they used to wear? (Many do.) Now please answer… how do their clothes turn invisible, ie., into spirit?

I’m afraid it’s all a pretense, designed to keep people misled.

IMO.

You've tried this one before.

You always seem to forget that people can simply be mistaken. And we know they can be, and often are. Any cursory study of human psychology will reveal that.