Are demons are real supernatural event?

well i would say yes.  for myself i believe that demons can be a real supernatural event. I say this with nothing more than personal experience at the heart of why i say this. I have no proof beyond personal anecdotes.

I would like to add  that from my own opinion what most people call demonic experience is little more than delusional thinking, typically a product of psychological projection. Archetypes  synchronicities, obsessions cravings and psychological aberrations are not enough in my own rules of evidence to make it into my own classification of supernatural proof.

My own criteria of genuine supernatural experiences is the experience of an event that is so outlandish it defies the known rules of physics. Its something that the body knows directly when it experiences it. The shock is devastating to our psyche too. In the case of demonic phenomena i would add that an external appearance to visible form is part of my suggested criteria. Not psychic vision or auras, i'm on about real external manifestation. Personally i have had this. I have stretched my own rationality beyond what it could explain satisfactorily. I have done this many many times and trust me when i say that i have  a very very supple imagination that can explain most things and make them sound believable, even to myself.  Despite this i have been past my own personal points of no return re scientific skepticism and rationality. I have burst my own bubble and gone waaay beyond my discerning criteria of cynical skepticism  regarding the supernatural.


On the subject of evidence and skepticism i would like to say that i believe skepticism to be a pretty effective barrier that keeps peoples awareness firmly separated away from the supernatural much in the same way that a set of blinkers operate.
I dont think this is merely a psychological effect. I believe it to have a  more fundamental and astonishing basis.

From my own perspective i would say that individual awareness tends to occupy common regions of reality of a larger wider reality. Like bands of shared reality within a wider conglomerate of threads.  To continue to explain my idea i would suggest that rational beings operate and experience their awareness in certain regions that do not coincide with supernatural phenomena.
Those people that do experience genuine supernatural events are typically those that have awareness capable of operating in non common, non rational regions.

Perhaps i can explain it better like this. I hear many people asking where on the electromagnetic scale chi and auras can be found. Personally i find the notion of the complete electromagnetic scale a good example of closed thinking that fails to take into account dimensions outside of its own measurement system. I personally believe that the electromagnetic scale is a narrow closed off portion of reality that is very very far from being complete. It is just one that we have langauge and tools to measure. I find it ignorant to think that reality stops at the limits of our ability to measure it.    That for me is one of the limits of rational scientific thinking, ie it is only one small part of what is available to us as aware beings.


The key to experiencing supernatural events is in gaining access to bands of reality outside the region of common rationality.  For that to happen may actually require you to do something new though, ie access those other bands by actually doing something different. Actually understanding what i have written about above from my point of view would be a good start.

One of those cliched religious quotes springs to mind just now about Mohammed and the mountain, except im sure its the wrong way round.

"From my own perspective i would say that individual awareness tends to occupy common regions of reality of a larger wider reality. Like bands of shared reality within a wider conglomerate of threads.  To continue to explain my idea i would suggest that rational beings operate and experience their awareness in certain regions that do not coincide with supernatural phenomena.
Those people that do experience genuine supernatural events are typically those that have awareness capable of operating in non common, non rational regions. "

I like this idea, but as you've already stated you have no evidence to verify it. 

You speak as if the mind is in another dimension and only seldom interacts with supernatural entities when it is in a state of irrationality.  According to your theory, what is it about irrationality that allows one to become susceptible and vulnerable to the supernatural? 

Wouldn't this seem to verify the idea that rationality, skepticism, and logic are "shields" of some sort against the supposed dangers of the supernatural/paranormal?

Well let me see re evidence.  I could provide witness statements. Corroborating accounts from independent sources that matched my own perceptions . Reliable witness statements typically constitute sufficient evidence in a court of law. Put me in court and i would be very believable, simply because what happened happened. I have given evidence in court on many legal matters before, often as an expert witness.

To be honest though i cant really be bothered. Im here talking to you Mark because i currently find it interesting. Im just enjoying the chat. Im not on a mission to save mankind or any other  childish fantasy.

 The thing is i find all the gumpf about proof and evidence all a bit silly. The real proof about supernatural stuff is a personal thing. As far as i can tell proof of anything always is. Its only ever ourselves that we prove things to. After we have proved stuff to ourselves we just spout opinions. My opinion says your opinion is wrong, or my opinion agrees with yours etc. Even science is just reducable to little more than opinions. I see scientists arguing all the time about stuff.

As for the dangers of the paranormal, i think the real dangers are at the mundane level, ie handling things badly after an event and behaving like a penishead. Thats the real danger, being a penishead. Having stupid thoughts like ' i am a vampire, i am a shapeshifting guardian of the wee folk etc. I mean seriously, its one step away from superhero costumes. We normally grow out of that pretty early on in life. Talk about developmental levels!

As for rationality etc being shields, Im twisting my face up as a result of looking at it that way. Im not really happy with that as an explanation. I  would prefer to say that rationality can only  measure  the region it covers. 
As for skepticism, well i dont believe unbiased skeptics exist. (semi-joking)

Well let me see re evidence.  I could provide witness statements. Corroborating accounts from independent sources that matched my own perceptions . Reliable witness statements typically constitute sufficient evidence in a court of law. Put me in court and i would be very believable, simply because what happened happened. I have given evidence in court on many legal matters before, often as an expert witness.

1.  No number of eyewitness accounts would convince the scientific or academic community of the paranormal/supernatural's existence.  Unless of course, the overwhelming majority of the scientific or academic community personally witnessed such events themselves, then they might change their minds lol.  It just so happens that the overwhelming majority of scientists and such have not.  I do not question your authenticity on a personal level, I question the reliability of all eye witness testimony as evidence.  Science tells us not to rely on eyewitness accounts, for they are notoriously unreliable.  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-the-eyes-have-it

To be honest though i cant really be bothered. Im here talking to you Mark because i currently find it interesting. Im just enjoying the chat. Im not on a mission to save mankind or any other  childish fantasy.

The thing is i find all the gumpf about proof and evidence all a bit silly. The real proof about supernatural stuff is a personal thing. As far as i can tell proof of anything always is. Its only ever ourselves that we prove things to. After we have proved stuff to ourselves we just spout opinions. My opinion says your opinion is wrong, or my opinion agrees with yours etc. Even science is just reducable to little more than opinions. I see scientists arguing all the time about stuff.

2.  I'm not taking you to task for lack of evidence, it's actually quite the opposite.  I'm saying that assuming you are correct about your theory, if you had to guess why irrationality allows you to become susceptible to contact with the supernatural, what is your best idea for how that works? 

3.  Proof and evidence silly?  Come on now....how else could we be certain of the authenticity of people's statements?  Science is definitely NOT just opinions.  Science is based in fact, evidence, theories, etc.  Theories are tested rigorously for decades or even centuries.  To say that the big bang theory is merely opinion would be absurd.  To say that the theory of evolution is merely opinion would be even more absurd.  The two theories I referenced are anything but opinion. 
 

As for the dangers of the paranormal, i think the real dangers are at the mundane level, ie handling things badly after an event and behaving like a penishead. Thats the real danger, being a penishead. Having stupid thoughts like ' i am a vampire, i am a shapeshifting guardian of the wee folk etc. I mean seriously, its one step away from superhero costumes. We normally grow out of that pretty early on in life. Talk about developmental levels!

As for rationality etc being shields, Im twisting my face up as a result of looking at it that way. Im not really happy with that as an explanation. I  would prefer to say that rationality can only  measure  the region it covers. 
As for skepticism, well i dont believe unbiased skeptics exist. (semi-joking)

4.  Twisting up your face?  Why? 

"The key to experiencing supernatural events is in gaining access to bands of reality outside the region of common rationality"

That is what you said, but perhaps I'm misinterpreting it, or putting too much emphasis on one sentence. 

As for the skeptics sentence; I think to be completely and utterly unbiased is a practical impossibility, nevertheless it is still a goal that should be actively sought. 

Any chance you could simply your last into something more user friendly for me?

Its like reading a 8 pronged legal document with no clear direction for the conversation otherwise. Its a total conversation killer in its current format.

I put number for each paragraph.   There's a total of 8-10 lines of writing.  It shouldn't be too difficult.

The only thing that might make it look like an "8 pronged legal document" is the fact that I quoted what you wrote and responded accordingly.  I think the request is a bit exaggerated.   

 I will talk to most people where i find an element of flexibility or kindness to their conversation, its a form of generosity of spirit that leads to genuine exchange.

Here though i find i have lost a desire to continue the conversation.

Very well.  That is your choice. 

The estimated reading time for my 4 paragraphs is perhaps 3 minutes (I read it in 2 minutes).  If you have a reading disability, yes I will rewrite what I wrote.  Since you have not notified me whether you have one or not, I'm going to assume you have average reading skills which should be more than sufficient to read my 4 paragraphs.  You are under no obligation to respond. 

[Loki]

Of course there are many things that science cannot explain because these categories are beyond our understanding. When it comes to infinites, science has just theories ... about the existence of matter. And this kind of science I call faith.

Moreover, I think most people on this site are religious and thus believe in the existence of a creator they call GOD. Have you ever seen or met God?  Or do you have any proofs of its existence? There are no answers to such questions, as for the existence of spirits, entities, demons, elementals ...

Can you explain telepathy? No but I am sure you already experienced the phenomenon of the phone ringing.

I'm not sure what you mean by theories concerning the existence of matter.  And that this somehow requires faith in this sort of science.  Could you be more specific? 

I personally think that the rational thing to do in the situation with the existence of God, along with all the other supernatural entities you referenced, in the absence of (what I consider) reliable evidence would be to simply not believe in its existence, at least until evidence is presented that would suggest otherwise.  Now, if I can somehow throw together a plausible way in which something could exist or something could work, then I'll entertain that idea as being merely plausible.  At least until evidence either confirms or denies it.  I think it is unwise to become personally invested in ideas to the point where evidence to the contrary would not phase you. 

I cannot find a single case in which telepathy actually worked.  And I have never myself had a personal experience arousing my suspicion of telepathy's existence.  Doing my own google search for 10-15 minutes, I have found no reliable evidence suggesting that telepathy is a real phenomena.  If you can find an experiment which yielded positive results for telepathy, I am interested in hearing about it. 

The most simple experiment which you can try for yourself is to stop thinking for extended periods of time.
A couple of hours at a time should get you some new material to work with.
There is no point telling you what to expect as this might skew your analysis of any experiences that may or may not come.
I guess wether you do this or not is a matter of how much you want to know about things currently outside your current experiential set.