Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[setarcos]

We can indirectly see subatomic particles, or see results of what they do.

Indirectly is the key here. And even that indirectly is actually only algorithmic models used to imaginatively visualize what we can't see. So while we might observe the effects and creatively determine their causes, the actual causes remain clothed in obscurity and theoretical.

It would be nice if things like gods, pink unicorns, etc were objective things but they aren't

What I find fascinating here is that human beings, being finite, and very limited creatures are compelled to determine what can't be without any proof either way. No logical proof, no scientific proof, no proof what so ever. This to me is testament to being like a fish in a bowl, bound to our own biases of what reality must be even though the one thing humans have shown definitively is that they only know a fraction of that reality.

as long as people use them to benefit themselves and not pretend everyone must see them.

Another fascinating thing to me....millions of people from all walks of life experience strange things which they cannot explain with current knowledge of how things should work regardless of the level of education, occupation, religion, age, or sex and that experience often leads them to ridicule, deterioration of health, loss of friends, job, or even their life, and yet they are unwavering in their insistence on the truth of their experience. And millions more dismiss that experience by insisting on pigeonholing that experience into explanations they feel most comfortable with, without any proof.
That to me is evidence of the inherent flaw of the human hubris of thinking we know what must be, can be, and absolutely is without question.
I don't think its an insistence on seeing "them" whatever "them" is. I think to these people its more of an insistence on recognizing the legitimacy of their unique experiences.
Unfortunately - I think its unfortunate - we cannot legitimize unique experiences until we have them ourselves. And only then the experience we have. In the mean while, in the absence of proof we shouldn't outright dismiss the experience others say they have had simply because we disagree with its possibility. That's not to say that we have to agree with the experiencers interpretation of that experience but then again discussion of those possibilities without bias should make for wonderful communion between common beings on the reality they find themselves a part of.

 

[setarcos]

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.

Mistaken how? Are you saying that every experience these tens of thousands of people have had must be psychological self delusion mistaken by the experiencer for an external objective cause? And the cases of which more than one independent experiencer who have correlated and corroborated experiences?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Mistaken how? Are you saying that every experience these tens of thousands of people have had must be psychological self delusion mistaken by the experiencer for an external objective cause? And the cases of which more than one independent experiencer who have correlated and corroborated experiences?

You just said yourself in the post above this, that people have experiences they can't explain.

So, when you have an experience you can't explain, you don't just get to say "God did it," or whatever. You'd have to actually demonstrate that, if you want to hold rational, logical positions on such things. And especially if you want anyone else to believe it. You can't draw conclusions from incomplete data. But humans tend to do this, which is one of the biases I was talking about.

 

[setarcos]

So, when you have an experience you can't explain, you don't just get to say "God did it," or whatever.

Yes, we do. People do it all the time in the presence the unknown. They label their experience in keeping with their world view. I also said we don't have to agree with their interpretation. But in the absence of proof we don't or shouldn't have the authority to dismiss their interpretation outright.

You'd have to actually demonstrate that, if you want to hold rational, logical positions on such things.

Lets look at it from an the alternate point of view. Why is it that you would demand a demonstration of the legitimacy of someone's interpretation of a phenomena without you yourself having to demonstrate the irrationality of holding such an interpretation? Since a claimed experience had been made one might expect the onus to be on the experiencer to demonstrate why we should believe such things. However unique experiences are not always rationally demonstrable and reality is not always rationally discoverable by humans. Quantum mechanical theory has demonstrated that much to a degree.
In actuality unless the experience should be claimed to extend beyond the experiencer to others the onus of proof for ones stance should fall equally upon the experiencer and those who would claim otherwise.
I think what your getting at is proof of interpretation. Now if one would take as axiomatic that the person had an experience and to the best of their ability described that experience then interpretation opens itself up to hypothesizing and theorizing.
So...can we demonstrate somehow why "demons" cannot exist? I would first posit that one should discuss what is meant by "demon" or "demonic" experience in the first place since one persons demon may be someone else's version of a very bad habit, experience, or disease etc. Is "demon" merely a personification of an "evil" thing or an actual descriptor of a being of intent?

You can't draw conclusions from incomplete data. But humans tend to do this, which is one of the biases I was talking about.

I agree and would go you one further and say that humans always do that and by necessity. We can never in our current state have complete data. So we work with the data we have. And that is my point. In the face of incomplete data no side can claim the high ground of being closer to the truth without due cause. And lack of experience is not cause for establishing what's real or possible.
If we had complete data we wouldn't have to keep revising our scientific theories and notions of what is possible. We might know that poking a bear with a stick causes it to growl but that doesn't tell us why and that often gets us into trouble. We think we can control the bears growl by poking it, we think we've reached an understanding of reality, but we have woefully incomplete data on the ultimate consequences and what reality has yet to show us.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, we do. People do it all the time in the presence the unknown. They label their experience in keeping with their world view. I also said we don't have to agree with their interpretation. But in the absence of proof we don't or shouldn't have the authority to dismiss their interpretation outright.

Yeah, that's my point. If you don't have enough data to draw a conclusion, then you're not warranted in drawing a conclusion.

I mean you can if you want, but it's not rational, logical or reasonable to do so.

It's not about dismissal. It's about not accepting claims that are not in evidence. In the absence of evidence, we aren't warranted in accepting any interpretation.

Lets look at it from an the alternate point of view. Why is it that you would demand a demonstration of the legitimacy of someone's interpretation of a phenomena without you yourself having to demonstrate the irrationality of holding such an interpretation? Since a claimed experience had been made one might expect the onus to be on the experiencer to demonstrate why we should believe such things. However unique experiences are not always rationally demonstrable and reality is not always rationally discoverable by humans. Quantum mechanical theory has demonstrated that much to a degree.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The person making the claim needs to demonstrate that the claim is warranted. Otherwise, we'd just be stuck having to believe everyone's claims and everyone's interpretations, no matter what they are.

In actuality unless the experience should be claimed to extend beyond the experiencer to others the onus of proof for ones stance should fall equally upon the experiencer and those who would claim otherwise.
I think what your getting at is proof of interpretation. Now if one would take as axiomatic that the person had an experience and to the best of their ability described that experience then interpretation opens itself up to hypothesizing and theorizing.
So...can we demonstrate somehow why "demons" cannot exist? I would first posit that one should discuss what is meant by "demon" or "demonic" experience in the first place since one persons demon may be someone else's version of a very bad habit, experience, or disease etc. Is "demon" merely a personification of an "evil" thing or an actual descriptor of a being of intent?

It's not up to other people to prove demons don't exist. That's not how the burden of proof works, and again, if that's how we did it, we'd have to believe every claim every made, if and until someone could prove it wrong. That's not a good way to discern fact from fiction.

I agree and would go you one further and say that humans always do that and by necessity. We can never in our current state have complete data. So we work with the data we have. And that is my point. In the face of incomplete data no side can claim the high ground of being closer to the truth without due cause. And lack of experience is not cause for establishing what's real or possible.
If we had complete data we wouldn't have to keep revising our scientific theories and notions of what is possible. We might know that poking a bear with a stick causes it to growl but that doesn't tell us why and that often gets us into trouble. We think we can control the bears growl by poking it, we think we've reached an understanding of reality, but we have woefully incomplete data on the ultimate consequences and what reality has yet to show us.

We can have a good amount of data that all points to the same conclusion. That's what scientific theories are. Revising a scientific theory doesn't falsify it. It just adds to it.

 

[danieldemol]

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.

Why is it naive to think that thousands (where did you get this figure from anyway?) of people are delusional?
In a population of 8 billion a few thousand is a tiny percentage, I feel pretty sure a much larger percentage of people than that deal with common mental health issues.
In my opinion.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why is it naive to think that thousands (where did you get this figure from anyway?) of people are delusional?
In a population of 8 billion a few thousand is a tiny percentage, I feel pretty sure a much larger percentage of people than that deal with common mental health issues.
In my opinion.

That’s not what I said.
I said “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”

These people are engaging in two-way conversations, through spirit mediums, ouija boards, or other means.
There are some members here on RF, who have. I know the majority are not “delusional”; you called them that, not me.

I said “everyday” there are thousands who experience these occurrences.… throughout entire lifetimes, though, it probably has been experienced by millions of people currently living; throughout history, probably tens of millions.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed he could speak with the dead. And believed he did so. There are accounts stating that Abraham Lincoln & his wife Mary did so, too.

Many others.

 

[Brian2]

Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

If so what is the evidence?

From the perspective of belief in demons I see evidence of demons but the evidence I see is what others say is not evidence for demons at all, and they are right, but for me it is still evidence for demons.

 

[danieldemol]

That’s not what I said.
I said “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”

These people are engaging in two-way conversations, through spirit mediums, ouija boards, or other means.
There are some members here on RF, who have. I know the majority are not “delusional”; you called them that, not me.

I believe you claim knowledge where you have none. How do you "know" they are not delusional, can you demonstrate it?

I said “everyday” there are thousands who experience these occurrences.… throughout entire lifetimes, though, it probably has been experienced by millions of people currently living; throughout history, probably tens of millions.

It appears to me you are plucking figures from thin air. And if you are going to weigh up all people who believed they were having 2-way conversations with spirits through history it is only fair that you weigh them up against all people that have ever lived - which makes them only a tiny fraction.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed he could speak with the dead.

Source?

There are accounts stating that Abraham Lincoln & his wife Mary did so, too.

Many others.

Where those accounts by Abraham Lincoln? If so source?

So to support your claims of tens of millions you managed to name less than 4 people?

In my opinion.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I don’t have any because me and Pazuzu are not currently on speaking terms.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I believe you claim knowledge where you have none. How do you "know" they are not delusional, can you demonstrate it?

How do you know they are not? Was Winston Churchill delusional? He’s on record as admitting he saw Lincoln’s ghost (although he didn’t report any two-way conversation), as stated in Wikipedia.

If I was to include reports of just seeing these entities, such as this one, where no two-way conversation took place, the number really increases with all ghost claims.
Per the Wikipedia article I previously posted, Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia :
“First Lady Grace Coolidge, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and President Theodore Roosevelt are among those who claimed to have seen Lincoln's ghost in the White House.”

Source?

RE: Doyle? Initially he was a skeptic, but after his experiences, he became convinced.
Here’s a link, also revealing other famous people. https://www.history.com/.amp/news/spiritualism-communication-dead-figures

Where those accounts by Abraham Lincoln? If so source?

A seance at the White House. ;
Occult America: White House Seances, Ouija Circles, Masons, and the Secret Mystic History of Our Nation ;
Presidential X Files: The Lincolns and The Seance in the White House ;
There’s more….

So to support your claims of tens of millions you managed to name less than 4 people?

Ive “managed” more, now.

Anyhow, I just need one genuine event to support my claim….you need them all to be faked.

Demons’ M.O. is varied; it goes way beyond impostering the dead! They are the source of all supernatural incidents, and they encourage worship of many false gods, to further alienate humankind from their Creator, Jehovah.

That’s their goal, to mislead and deceive. They don’t care how; they’re content doing that, any which way they can.
Atheism & skepticism is fine with them, too. So they don’t reveal themselves to just anyone. In fact, I can almost guarantee that they won’t directly bother you. If one manifested itself to you, either as a dead loved one / ghost, or scared you like a poltergeist, what might happen? You’d have to rethink your worldview, and might even begin searching for God! That’s the last thing they want!!


And for centuries they’ve been working to tear down the faith people may have in His (God’s) Word, promoting inaccurate teachings like hellfire & the immortality of the soul*, & also influencing humans to remove God’s Name from His own Book.


*, this “immortality of the soul,” they promote by pretending to be people who’ve died.
But the Bible tells us , “the dead know nothing.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:3-4; Genesis 3:19) And the only hope for humans to live again, is the Resurrection. - John 5:28-29; Acts of the Apostles 24:15.

So by pretending to be ghosts, ie., dead people, they are attacking those Bible statements, making them seem like they’re wrong. Revelation 12:9-12

Well, I’m probably wasting my time. Maybe others will find it intriguing, and see how it fits the evidence.


These are my beliefs.

 

[Elihoenai]

Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

If so what is the evidence?

Demons/Devil Convince you that they don't exist until you find out things they don't want you to know.

You only Really Know that Demons/Satan exist through Personal Experience.

No amount of External Evidence from Others can Really Convince another Person that Demons/Devil exist:



THE CONJURING: THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT – Official Trailer

Trial of Arne Cheyenne Johnson

The trial of Arne Cheyenne Johnson, also known as the "Devil Made Me Do It" case, is the first known court case in the United States in which the defense sought to prove innocence based upon the claim of demonic possession and denial of personal responsibility for the crime.

Trial of Arne Cheyenne Johnson - Wikipedia


Ed and Lorraine Warren

"...Criticism

According to a 1997 interview with the Connecticut Post, Steve Novella and Perry DeAngelis investigated the Warrens for the New England Skeptical Society (NESS). They found the couple to be pleasant people, but their claims of demons and ghosts to be "at best, as tellers of meaningless ghost stories, and at worst, dangerous frauds."..."

Ed and Lorraine Warren - Wikipedia


Demons is the Satan/Devil Manifesting in different ways.

 

[setarcos]

How do you "know" they are not delusional, can you demonstrate it?

If I may butt in here,
I don't think we should claim certain knowledge of who's deluded and who's not if anyone is. However, the way someone interprets these experiences, why we have them, and why the brain seemingly has a healthy portion of itself dedicate to their experience are fascinating questions.
If we have an existent phenomenon which effects a significant percentage of the population - and it apparently does as some polls show- and some other significant portion of that population deems to interpret that phenomenon according to the worldview they currently hold to - because what else can we do but interpret our experiences - and another portion of the population condemns that worldview according to their own biases, it seems to me that in the absence of proof to the contrary the onus is on both and neither parties to prove the case.
How does one prove delusion in cases of unique personal experience? Unfortunately in such things the proof is in the pudding so to speak. One must have the experience to understand the proof.
We are all deluded by reality to an extent. The question is, is the particular delusion we are having commensurate with our deluded reality or restricted to our personal disposition at the time?

It appears to me you are plucking figures from thin air.

Not exactly...I'd say they probably undercut the actual numbers...

Gabriela Miranda
USA TODAY​

2 in 5 Americans believe ghosts are real and 1 in 5 say they've seen one, survey says

Published 9:35 a.m. ET Oct. 28, 2021
and ....
From YouGovAmerica

Two-thirds of Americans say they've had a paranormal encounter

And from pewresearch.org back in Oct 30, 2015​

18% of Americans say they've seen a ghost

That's nearly 60 million people in America alone.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed he could speak with the dead.

Source?

That is a well known fact that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Doyle is aware of and easily checked so I won't bother sourcing this one.

Where those accounts by Abraham Lincoln? If so source?

Same here.


Add Topic

​

 

[SkepticThinker]

If I may butt in here,
I don't think we should claim certain knowledge of who's deluded and who's not if anyone is. However, the way someone interprets these experiences, why we have them, and why the brain seemingly has a healthy portion of itself dedicate to their experience are fascinating questions.
If we have an existent phenomenon which effects a significant percentage of the population - and it apparently does as some polls show- and some other significant portion of that population deems to interpret that phenomenon according to the worldview they currently hold to - because what else can we do but interpret our experiences - and another portion of the population condemns that worldview according to their own biases, it seems to me that in the absence of proof to the contrary the onus is on both and neither parties to prove the case.
How does one prove delusion in cases of unique personal experience? Unfortunately in such things the proof is in the pudding so to speak. One must have the experience to understand the proof.
We are all deluded by reality to an extent. The question is, is the particular delusion we are having commensurate with our deluded reality or restricted to our personal disposition at the time?

Not exactly...I'd say they probably undercut the actual numbers...

Gabriela Miranda
USA TODAY​

2 in 5 Americans believe ghosts are real and 1 in 5 say they've seen one, survey says

Published 9:35 a.m. ET Oct. 28, 2021
and ....
From YouGovAmerica

Two-thirds of Americans say they've had a paranormal encounter

And from pewresearch.org back in Oct 30, 2015​

18% of Americans say they've seen a ghost

That's nearly 60 million people in America alone.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed he could speak with the dead.

That is a well known fact that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Doyle is aware of and easily checked so I won't bother sourcing this one.

Same here.

Add Topic

​

No. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
That's if you care about believing in as many true things as possible and not believing in as many false things as possible.
If you don't, then go ahead and believe anything you want, but realize it isn't evidence for anyone other than yourself, by definition.

Not to mention the fact that this entire post is an argument ad populum fallacy - the number of people that believe in a thing has no bearing on whether that thing actually exists or is real.

 

[setarcos]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

I am aware of this consideration. Atheists push this statement to denounce theist claims and reinforce their own.
The problem with that is when the inability to currently prove a claim becomes equaled with disproof of that claim.

That's if you care about believing in as many true things as possible and not believing in as many false things as possible.

I think we can agree that a world wide phenomenon is occurring to people. The source and effects of that phenomenon is what's in question. Someone has an experience that seems to defy the laws of probability or known natural laws. What we are dealing with is how to interpret such experiences, how to classify them, label them, process them, even how to understand how they work. According to natural laws or supernatural causes.
In most cases I've heard or read about the experiencer doesn't start out trying to prove anything. They try to relate the experience they've had and in the absence of understanding that experience in comparison to their normal lives they tend to classify the experience according to their known worldviews. We all do this. It is how we make sense of relating to the world and our place in it. I've read and seen taped interviews of well educated Science PhD's blanch at their descriptions of experiences they were unable to process except by classifying them as supernatural phenomenon. And I've read the statements of other Scientists that scoff at such things as either not having happened at all or as having been misinterpreted as if those two options were the only two facts about such claims before any proof was offered either way.
So where does this leave us? It leaves us with an unproven event having happened that is classified according to our own particular worldviews at the time. What it doesn't leave us is a proof of whether or not something is true or false as regards its particulars.
Those that dismiss a claimed truth without proving that truth false are just as guilty of a logical fallacy as those they demand proof from.

If you don't, then go ahead and believe anything you want

I think for most people who have these experiences this statement is extreme. Belief in anything for most "healthy" people is a process of evolving understanding. Not too many people I know, and I presume a good portion I don't personally know, would deign to simply believe every little bit of info that comes along outright. However when it comes to thinking about something that comes along that was not a personal experience and that doesn't fit our current worldview and understanding its pretty hard not to process it as impossible.

but realize it isn't evidence for anyone other than yourself, by definition.

A very astute observation. We have no specific data of individual experiences other than that given individually. Like trying to define a single electrons state in a cloud of possibilities. But we do have data about general experiences by groups of people whos experiences have been given a similar cast. Like a group of photons which collectively define the outcomes of particular experiments.

Not to mention the fact that this entire post is an argument ad populum fallacy

I think that's because we are misplacing what goal we are trying to achieve here. Specific answers in place of general conclusions.

the number of people that believe in a thing has no bearing on whether that thing actually exists or is real.

Well...hehe...their are those that believe we make our reality by looking at it and if enough look with similar intent that reality becomes real. But ahem, I can only say that the larger the number of people who have claimed similar experiences the larger the probability that some phenomena is taking place that we have yet to definitively determine the cause of.
Once we recognize that phenomenon's existents its cause opens itself up to discussion and debate. Seems to me there is only 3 paths to take.
1) Ignore the claims, having no interest in their truth or falsity.
2) Believe the claims as possible but apart from personal experience unprovable
3) Research possible means of proving/disproving such things and then Discuss/debate the claims accordingly.
What we shouldn't do is use these forums to outright dismiss these claims because a particular phenomenon can't be specifically proven to the satisfaction of someone who has a different worldview or hasn't had a personal experience of said phenomenon nor can offer a proof themselves.
Its fascinating to me why so many people defend their personal positions on a matter with almost militant fervor with no proof of their own while demanding proof from someone else when it comes to existent or non existent things. And its usually not just...prove it if you want me to believe it...its...you can't prove it because it's impossible!
So, the question is - 0r should be - Is the thing in question possible regardless of any specific extraneous proof?

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Not for me.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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

That is also true in my life. Therapy saved my life too, but before I began seeing a professional therapist, the Beatles were my therapy, and listening to their music literally saved my life when I was a teenager and young adult. Listening to their music provided me with a comforting escape from the living hell I was trapped in growing up in a Christian home, and their music quickly became a refuge for me. On the other hand, being a devout Christian who prayed several times a day for years, read the Bible every day and read it cover to cover several times, and faithfully attended church and Sunday school was a complete and total waste of my time and energy. I can honestly say that I wasted thirty years of my life (and a few years before that) believing in God. As a child and teenager, I'd pray to him every day, asking and pleading with him to protect me from being abused and bullied, but I suffered severe abuse and mistreatment at home for thirteen and a half years and perpetual bullying and harassment in school for twelve years. However, after many years of diligent and sincere prayer, I realized that praying to God was a waste of my time and energy. I finally realized that I was on my own and that it was my responsibility to save and care for myself. I learned that I can stand on my own and take care of myself without relying on God or any other deities to assist me when I needed guidance, heal me when I was sick, or protect and save me from harm.

I stopped believing in God after I was finally honest with myself and accepted the painful truth that my faith in a loving, merciful God wasn't compatible with the reality that I had suffered abuse while I was growing up, and I've had to deal with the traumatic emotional effects of that abuse ever since. I believed in God when I was growing up because that's what I was indoctrinated to believe, despite being abused by my adoptive mother, who's a Christian. My adopted father and my adopted extended family, who are also Christians, always looked the other way. And in spite of being perpetually abused and bullied, I became a Christian myself when I was seventeen and continued to be one for thirty years. To be honest, being a Christian was an absolutely miserable experience for me. There was no peace and joy in my heart or life, as was promised in the Bible to those who believed in and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior.

Despite my genuine faith in God and sincere devotion to him, I was an empty shell, going through the motions. Long story short, I no longer believe in God, and I've renounced my Christian faith. I chose to share my story of being abused as a child (read it here) in the hopes that my story will help other survivors of childhood abuse, and my story of childhood abuse is intertwined with my decision to renounce my faith (read it here). I share my story of leaving Christianity in the hopes that it might inspire others who are thinking of doing the same, or perhaps inspire people who have already left and need reassurance. I can honestly say that letting go of my belief and faith in God is the best decision that I've ever made for my mental health and emotional well-being. My only regret is that I should have done this years ago. I won't say much more because I don't want to derail the thread, but believing in and trusting the so-called loving and merciful God of the Bible was a terrible mistake on my part. I can see that now as I reflect back on my life. It took me years to realize and accept that there is no God who will come to my rescue and that if I wanted to survive in this life, I had to save myself by caring for myself and protecting myself from being abused and bullied. I began standing up for myself shortly after turning eighteen, when I confronted my two abusers head-on, and I have continued to do so ever since. I saved myself. God had nothing to do with it.

Finally, I believe it is critical to learn to stand on your own and care for yourself without relying on religious beliefs or a deity to heal you or save you from harm. In my opinion, the sooner people learn this, the better their mental health and emotional well-being will be, as will their lives once they learn to care for themselves. It proved true for me, so I believe that it is possible for others once they are free of the religious indoctrination they have been subjected to during their lives. As far as I'm concerned, I don't need to believe in any gods in order to live a moral life and make the right choices. I've proven to myself that I can stand on my own without genuinely believing in the biblical God or in any other deities. If the biblical God actually exists, then I certainly don't want or need him in my life.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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?

I think you're aware of where I stand on this subject. I will say that years of personal experience as a psychic medium have taught me that what the Bible teaches about the afterlife and what it claims will happen to people after they die are demonstrably false and extremely misleading. And I don't just make this claim flippantly without backing it up. As you know, I've shared my experiences as a psychic medium and a paranormal investigator on this forum for more than a year now, in several threads of my own and in many others. Not only have I shared many of my personal experiences as a medium, but as a paranormal investigator, I've shared specific details and posted visible images that I've gathered during my own investigations of various haunted places across the United States.

As I've explained in previous posts (such as this one), the reason I post on this forum about my mediumship abilities is so that others who don't have these abilities can experience what I see, hear, and feel every day and have since I was six years old (read it here). I also start threads about my paranormal investigations to share my experiences with people who have never had close encounters with the paranormal like I have (such as these posts here and here). I don't talk about being a psychic medium anywhere else online other than RF. And, aside from my husband, children, in-laws, and closest friends, no one else in my family or anyone who knows me knows that I am a medium or that I investigate the paranormal. I was also hesitant to give my first reading, which was for my therapist at the time (read about it here). To be honest, when I'm out in public, like in a restaurant, I try to avoid drawing attention to myself.

I don't mention that I'm a medium to other people I meet and don't know while I'm investigating a haunted location (read my post here). I will occasionally give a reading to someone if I believe they will be open to it, but I won't ever press the issue if the person is unwilling to listen. I can only give a reading to someone in person, never online. I've also taken part in a séance where I gave a reading to a former friend and a small group of her friends (read about it here), but it resulted in a real problem for me (read about it here), and I resolved never to do that again. I've met a lot of people over the years who were skeptical of the paranormal, but I have yet to meet someone who remained skeptical after I revealed private information that only this person and their deceased loved one knew.

As a psychic medium, I've helped many people (both skeptics and believers in the paranormal) connect with and communicate with their deceased loved ones over the years. As I said, I've never met anyone who remained a skeptic after I shared private information that only they and their deceased loved one knew. I've also helped many lost, confused, and angry human spirits cross over into the spirit world, like the spirit of a young girl I wrote about in this previous post. In fact, I've persuaded many lost and confused human souls cross over into the spirit world, even though they believed they'd go straight to heaven to be with God and Jesus after death.

As I've previously stated in other posts, I won't debate and argue with you or with anyone else, and that is for two reasons: first, as I explained in a previous post here, I don't want to debate or argue with those who don't believe my abilities are real or believe in the paranormal, and second, I don't want to derail the thread. To avoid derailing the thread, I've included links to my previous posts, in which I discussed my beliefs about the afterlife (read my post here) and what it's like for me to be a psychic medium, including what my mediumship abilities are (read my post here). I've included several of my previous posts on this subject for you and others to read.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am aware of this consideration. Atheists push this statement to denounce theist claims and reinforce their own.

Nope. That's just how the rules of logic and reason work. It's the exact same standard that I expect from any claim about any topic or thing that anybody makes. It's not a denunciation of anything. It's just the standard for claims. Otherwise, we'd be stuck believing in all kinds of things that aren't true, and I'm not interested in that.

Also, atheism isn't a claim. It contains no claims within in. It's just a lack of belief in god(s).

The problem with that is when the inability to currently prove a claim becomes equaled with disproof of that claim.

Only if you don't understand how logic and reason work. Not accepting a claim for lack of evidence isn't the same thing as saying that the claim is false or has been disproven.

Let's say I have a giant jar full of gumballs. We don't have any idea how many gum balls are in it. Then someone says to you, "do you believe the number of gumballs is an odd number?"
And you respond, "No" because you don't know. Does that then mean you are making the claim that the number of gumballs is even? Or does it mean you just don't know and therefore can't really make any claims about it? In other words, your lack belief in the amount of gumballs being odd isn't a claim that the number of gum balls is even. Right? With no evidence presented to us indicating either way, we can't decide anything about the number of gumballs in the jar. Until we count them or something.

I think we can agree that a world wide phenomenon is occurring to people. The source and effects of that phenomenon is what's in question. Someone has an experience that seems to defy the laws of probability or known natural laws. What we are dealing with is how to interpret such experiences, how to classify them, label them, process them, even how to understand how they work. According to natural laws or supernatural causes.

There is a "phenomenon" that people tend to pick up the religion they were raised with and all the baggage that comes with it. Billions of people across the world believe in all kinds of different gods and ghosts and ghoulies and all kinds of different supernatural realms, but the problem is that nobody has managed to demonstrate that such a realm even exists in the first place.

Someone "having an experience that seems to defy the laws of probability or known natural laws" doesn't mean you actually had that. And without a specific example, I can't speak to the probability of anything, but probabilities require that numbers be input into equations and calculated accordingly. They aren't just random guesses based on personal experiences that we can't comprehend. And just because a person had an experience that they personally believe violated the laws of physics or something, doesn't make it so. Perhaps that person's knowledge about physics just isn't broad enough.

In most cases I've heard or read about the experiencer doesn't start out trying to prove anything. They try to relate the experience they've had and in the absence of understanding that experience in comparison to their normal lives they tend to classify the experience according to their known worldviews. We all do this. It is how we make sense of relating to the world and our place in it. I've read and seen taped interviews of well educated Science PhD's blanch at their descriptions of experiences they were unable to process except by classifying them as supernatural phenomenon. And I've read the statements of other Scientists that scoff at such things as either not having happened at all or as having been misinterpreted as if those two options were the only two facts about such claims before any proof was offered either way.

Sorry to say then, that those PhD holders who classify things they don't understand as "supernatural phenomenon" are just giving up. All they are doing is replacing a mystery with another mystery ("supernatural phenomenon"). It doesn't explain anything. It doesn't elucidate anything. It's just throwing up your hands and saying "I don't get it so it must be this other thing that I don't get and can't demonstrate." Someone has to show that there is a supernatural anything first, before we start declaring that things fall into that realm or whatever.

So where does this leave us? It leaves us with an unproven event having happened that is classified according to our own particular worldviews at the time. What it doesn't leave us is a proof of whether or not something is true or false as regards its particulars.
Those that dismiss a claimed truth without proving that truth false are just as guilty of a logical fallacy as those they demand proof from.

Nope. This is just an attempt to shift the burden of proof. We don't have to prove every claim false before we don't believe in it because that's illogical and would have us believing in all sorts of things that aren't true. So no, those that reject claims lacking in evidence aren't guilty of shirking their burden of proof, because it wasn't on them to begin with.

I think for most people who have these experiences this statement is extreme. Belief in anything for most "healthy" people is a process of evolving understanding. Not too many people I know, and I presume a good portion I don't personally know, would deign to simply believe every little bit of info that comes along outright. However when it comes to thinking about something that comes along that was not a personal experience and that doesn't fit our current worldview and understanding its pretty hard not to process it as impossible.

You think that the statement "That's if you care about believing in as many true things as possible and not believing in as many false things as possible. If you don't, then go ahead and believe anything you want," is extreme? Really?

That's where your line of thinking you have been talking about here gets us. As noted above, your line of thinking has us having to believe every claim everyone makes, until we can prove it wrong. Let's imagine this line of thinking in a court of law. In essence, what you'd be saying is that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Which of course, is the opposite of how it actually works.

A very astute observation. We have no specific data of individual experiences other than that given individually. Like trying to define a single electrons state in a cloud of possibilities. But we do have data about general experiences by groups of people whos experiences have been given a similar cast. Like a group of photons which collectively define the outcomes of particular experiments.

Such as?

I think that's because we are misplacing what goal we are trying to achieve here. Specific answers in place of general conclusions.

It's because you presented a logical fallacy as an argument.

Well...hehe...their are those that believe we make our reality by looking at it and if enough look with similar intent that reality becomes real. But ahem, I can only say that the larger the number of people who have claimed similar experiences the larger the probability that some phenomena is taking place that we have yet to definitively determine the cause of.

You just doubled down on a logical fallacy. It's still a logical fallacy, no matter how many times you claim it.

Probabilities aren't just guesses, as pointed out above. You have to have actual numbers to compare to other actual numbers that are inserted into actual equations.

Once we recognize that phenomenon's existents its cause opens itself up to discussion and debate. Seems to me there is only 3 paths to take.

What "phenomenon" are we talking about here, specifically? This is all rather vague.

1) Ignore the claims, having no interest in their truth or falsity.
2) Believe the claims as possible but apart from personal experience unprovable
3) Research possible means of proving/disproving such things and then Discuss/debate the claims accordingly.
What we shouldn't do is use these forums to outright dismiss these claims because a particular phenomenon can't be specifically proven to the satisfaction of someone who has a different worldview or hasn't had a personal experience of said phenomenon nor can offer a proof themselves.

Who has "outright dismissed" the claims here? I certainly didn't, did I? I think you're arguing against a straw man.

Its fascinating to me why so many people defend their personal positions on a matter with almost militant fervor with no proof of their own while demanding proof from someone else when it comes to existent or non existent things. And its usually not just...prove it if you want me to believe it...its...you can't prove it because it's impossible!
So, the question is - 0r should be - Is the thing in question possible regardless of any specific extraneous proof?

I don't know who you are arguing against here, but it isn't me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not for me.

For everybody else, it's the demonstrably effective approach.