rem; yeah, well one of the consistant things with paranormal claims is that external forces seem to be less likely than internal forces, for a variety of reasons, one being that the experiences are enculturated, and the other is that affecting the perceptions of participants (blindfolds etc.) screws up the results. Internal; forces might include paranormal powers not yet described by scienece, or just self deception, which humans are really good at.
Think of it, all those hours of people falling over ladders on Video Clip shows, all that footage... if with the amount of everyday life being recorded on film at a higher level in human history than ever before, there is still not one proved instance of a paranormal event on camera. Doesn't that strike you as ODD? Some people are apparently quite happy with the unlikihood of it.
Actually It is not a bad argument at all
As has already been pointed out, that is, as with almost ALL of your arguments, non-falsifiable. See a pattern hooberus?
As to your "Reverse it" point: I think that it involves some false assumptions. Namely that angels will do the exact opposite of demons in every case. Just because demons will probably not manifest themselves under "controlled" conditions such as an experiment before overtly atheistic observers (the demons are themselves observing the observers!), does not mean that angels will manifest themselves under these circumstances.
Demons wish to bring glory to themslves whereas angels wish for glory to go to God.
Barking up the wrong tree, but you're almost at the point I was making...
If angels appeard on video tape to convince people of the super-natural the angel worship that we see today would shurley increase.
Yup, absolutely right.
Angels also operate according to God's word:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
Angels wish people to place faith in God not necessarily by things which are seen (such as a supernatural manifestation), but by the testimony of the word of God as it relates to Jesus Christ and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit
Nah, people have manipulated the beliefs of people for ages but been quite careful in how they have done so. This includes making sure they avoid falsifying themselves; the scripture above, the "these things [paranorma powers] will pass away" scripture, the "people will say this has always been how things have been" scripture, are great example of non-evidential propganda. They say "you won't be able to prove it, but believe anyway", just the sort of thing you need if THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE. They are exactly what I would expect to find if someone was developing a belief structure they didn't want busted open too easily.
- A bunch of Israelites get the Independence Day style FX budget, and we have a nice story and a noticable lack of archaelogical evidence of their travels.
- The Son of God walks on this Earth in an age with no mass media, and is probably seen by a hundred thousand people at the very best, along with his Special FX. And all we have is a nice story and a deficientcy of evidence to back-up many Gospel claims.
- The Earth is created by God, but funnily enough, he does it in a way that allows the evidence across broad, multi-disciplinarian areas of science to be interpreted as a naturalistic process.
- Loads of people have paranormal experiences but none, not one, not EVER are proved in conventional scientific ways.
I think it's all a little convenient. You have ignored the points I made about the unprovability of god (BibleGod) being illogical given the described character of god. Why? Because you can't answer them hooberus. If it was okay for god to provide proof in front of people before, then, given that 2 minutes of an angel on the White House lawn would fill every church in every country, let alone a three year ministry of a Miracle Worker, I find the absence of such events in a BibleGod universe completely illogical. The absence of such events means some people will fail to believe, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF, using their god given minds to reach this conclusion. If this failure to believe has negative concequences, then logically if god is love and desirous that none are destroyed, it would be provided. Wake up and smell the fairy tale.
Any way I think that there is sufficient testimony for the demonic to be estabished from eye-witness testimony. Ouija board phenomena in my opinion is too common to be dismissed as hallucinations, lies, etc. I say this not just from reading accounts which may have been passed on from person to person, (hense subject to exaggeration) but from first hand discussions with those who have observed this phenomena (and who were in their right-mind when they did).
Doesn't it seem a bit purile to you? I suppose non-Christians who have what they consider proof of the existence of their gods are just deceived? And you are absolutely right, and undeceivable? Just like people who believe other things think they are? You see the World as a kind of Cold War between two powers, where there is lots of skullduggery going on in the background that cannot be proved either way. Is that really, logically, the way a god of LOVE would conduct things? Answer please, you've never answered this question straight before. It makes it a GAME hooberus; if god is like that, I find its actions immoral.
Their is a lot of evidence from eye-witness testimony. Though this may not be "hard evidence" in an observable sense under lab conditions, but it is still evidence. Many people have a testimony of sexual abuse at the hand of Wt members. This may not be "hard evidence" in the sense of being observed under lab or camera conditions, yet sufficient evidence can be accumulated through testimonies to show that these things have taken place.
Eye-witness testimony you yourself recognise is not "hard evidence". You might see it as "still evidence", but eye-witness evidence is one of the WORST forms of evidence there is; many wrongful convictions have been made due to bad eye-witness evidence. Now, you can base your world view on it, fine, if you want to have standards of proof like that, go ahead.
You have a right to your opinion...