Who & what are the demons ?

And you know that is simply another totally false platitude you use to avoid thinking.When a shooter claims to have hit the target the absence of holes is evidence that he is wrong.

It could be otherwise if demons actually do exist for people who believe in them. When someone who has synesthesia sees colours, do those colours actually exist?

I can agree that it is not possible to conclusively and absolutely disprove the existence of demons, but only in the logical context where you agree that:(a) the odds of their existence are precisely the same as the odds of existence of pink unicorns, fairies, Thor and Vishnu (for example); and(b) the odds of their existence are incredibly small, when compared to more mundane, prosaic explanations, for which we have considerable bodies of evidence (for example, we are aware that psychoses exist - there is a vast body of evidence to support their existence - and the odds that a murderer kills because he is psychotic are much greater than the unevidenced proposition that he was possessed by demons).(We can then have some fun debating how rational it is to ignore occam's razor)

I believe that demons are fictional entities invented by humans rather than real entities that exist outside of the human mind.If you agree with this but want to say that demons exist anyway, exist in some sort of conceptual sense or as some sort of metaphorical sense as in personal demons, I hope you will forgive me for not going down that semantically quibblesome ontological rabbit hole.

What can be demonstrated, often, is a better explanation than demons. Once upon a time, many diseases were supposedly caused by demons - and then we discovered microorganisms, which we can actually interact with in a more-or-less predictable way.All you have, essentially, is a demon-of-the-gaps argument.

Are we getting back to the supernatural is not real because it can not be known. And if it could be known then science could study it.
But then......it would not be super natural any more.
Bahhhahhhaawwaaa hahaha ha!!!!What if the man on the street says a demon is as a demon does?Oh wait.... I got it, demons exist to those who believe in them. However, they are products of the human mind and exist as fiction. But for the average man on the street describing a demon he may not be able to distinguish a super natural demon from a natural one.So a crazy person acting like a demon is really just a crazy person acting like a demon. Unless one believes that a demon acts like a crazy person who is possessed. But the moment one cast a doubt as to the supernatural evil spirit demon, then it is merely a matter of doubt rather than some empirical evidence that the person who is acting like a demon is not infact a demon.
Academia.edu

No. If anything I suppose we are getting back to if it is empirically detectable or has an empirically detectable effect then science can study it and if it isn't empirically detectable then how on Earth is anyone detecting it to make claims about it? The Santa paradox...(Ho ho ho). Then the man in the street should be asked to clarify what he is talking about.....? I don't subscribe to your use of "natural" and "supernatural" as being, by definition that which science can study and that which it cannot. Science is restricted to studying the empirical not, necessarily, the natural. This is even more off-topic than the rest of your post. Do you believe that demons exist and if so who or what do you believe they are?Do you - For example - Believe that president Obama is the anti-Christ?

No I believe we are in agreement that demons are superstitions. But they can be real to those who ascribe to their existence.

What do you mean by "real"...?In some sense you could say that Santa Claus is "real" to my 6 year old son.
But (I hate to be the one to tell you) Santa isn't really real.So is president Obama the anti-Christ? Who, or what, are the demons?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, the point of my link was to show how frame of reference can dictate what we otherwise perceive is real.Someone once said that Romeo and Juliet are fiction, but that does not mean the story does not say something real about love.Santa Claus is real. If you persist no Minced pies for you on Christmas.Obama is not the anti-Christ.That would be Mitt and his demon minion Paul Ryan.

Well we are talking about demons so I figured you were already about half way down but yeah ok.

Sure. For example do you perceive this picture as moving? But is it really moving? I agree. But given your apparent position on perception and reality how do you know that those who do perceive Obama to be the anti-Christ are in fact wrong?

You do have a point there!!

The picture is a optical illusion. It is not moving, that is how human brains are wired.How many times have you had a dream that was perceived as reality? Could you distinguish what was a dream and what was not? I can not KNOW. I can however be skeptical.We believe the things we do because we choose to believe them imo.

There's an important distinction between "real to" and "real". It's called objectivity. We compare our own perceived reality with others to form a consensus of reality. It should make people uncomfortable when something is real to them that isn't real to everybody else.