Einstein and others have pointed out, that in any scientific experiment, if it is set up to measure "objective findings," and if all interfering variables are factored out of the experiment, then the actual person doing the obeserving (observer) is and must be part of and factored into the experiment.  This forever ruined the idea of pure objectivity in experimentation for me, but taught me the value and interplay of consciousness on scientific experimentation. 

From an excellent website on quantum physics:

"The notion of the observer becoming a part of the observed system is fundamentally new in physics. In quantum physics, the observer is no longer external and neutral, but through the act of measurement he becomes himself a part of observed reality. This marks the end of the neutrality of the experimenter. It also has huge implications on the epistemology of science: certain facts are no longer objectifiable in quantum theory. If in an exact science, such as physics, the outcome of an experiment depends on the view of the observer, then what does this imply for other fields of human knowledge? It would seem that in any faculty of science, there are different interpretations of the same phenomena. More often than occasionally, these interpretations are in conflict with each other. Does this mean that ultimate truth is unknowable?"


Matthew

Mathew- 'Einstein and others have pointed out, that in any scientific experiment, if it is set up to measure "objective findings," and if all interfering variables are factored out of the experiment, then the actual person doing the obeserving (observer) is and must be part of and factored into the experiment.  This forever ruined the idea of pure objectivity in experimentation for me, but taught me the value and interplay of consciousness on scientific experimentation.'

Indeed, this is purported to be the cause of the so called 'experimenter effect' where positive results from sympathetic researchers are failed to be replicated in identical experiments performed by more sceptical colleagues with the same protocols. Also responcible for so called 'sheep' and 'goats' when it comes to things like predicting/influencing random events; "sheep" have a significant deviation above chance, while "goats" tend to be significantly below. This suggests the effect of belief of the observer on the observed.

D

Mind-matter interaction has been repeatedly demonstrated by DMILS research (= Direct Mental Interaction between Living Systems).  Measurements are taken of the receiver’s electrodermal (skin) reactions while he (she) is subjected to a series of arousing or calming thoughts by a sender.  Electrodermal reaction refers to the fluctuations of the skin’s resistance to a very mild electrical current.  When aroused by an emotion, the skin dampens slightly and the resistance drops; when relaxed, resistance increase.  The receiver and sender are in separate rooms and the receiver has no idea of what kind of situations the sender is visualizing.  The sender visualizes the receiver in a very exciting or fearful situation, then switches to visualizing him relaxing on a sunlight beach.  Even on occasions when the receiver is unable to report correctly whether the sender is visualizing arousing or relaxing situations, electrodermal reaction is significantly more activated during the arousing than during the calming sessions.  The instruments used are so sensitive that they register an effect even when the reaction is so slight that it fails to impinge on the receiver’s conscious mind.  Even when receivers have no idea of whether they are the recipients of arousing or calming thoughts, the unconscious mind receives the information and registers it in physiological reactions.

Don

Hawkeye,

You are of course mistakenly reading a demand for "proof" into my posts when in fact I make no such claims.  What we need to pursue are "verifications" in the sense of evidence that makes the most sense in the context of a belief system (e. g. the unusual number of spectactular apparent miracles experienced by Christians).  But the best available alternate explanations must also be sought in the interests of honest and open inquiry.  In a spiritual quest, the courage to doubt paradoxically usually increases the intensity of conviction and the depth of helpful insights.  Conversely, the suppression of doubt to enhance spiritual comfort often leads to the haunting feeling that we are just fooling ourselves with wishful thinking. 

I repeat: the early church fathers got it right.   "We do not understand in order to believe.  Rather, we believe in order to understand."  True understanding is a grace bestowed during a spiritually committed journey.  In my view, this is the one principle that my buddy Roger overlooks, which, if applied, would totally change his perspective on the spiritual quest.  We must believe passionately but provisionally--passionately because without passion the quality of our spirituality will be negligible and provisionally in the sense that we are always eager to modify or eliminate false beliefs in the interests of a deeper, more honest relationship with God. 

As a young man, I once traveled across Canada with a highly effective missionary, Lauren Cunningham.  He had converted an Amazon tribe to Christianity through specacular miracles, e. g. instantly healing a woman with cataracts and being able to preach to them in their language, a language which he had never learned.  I asked him about the key to his success.  He replied, "My faith become strong when I got clear that I was willing to be an atheist if the insights of my quest pointed in that direction."

Don

I heard it directly from Lauren Cunningham on the trans-Canada bus.  I had just turned 20 and had joined his organization, "Youth with a Mission," and was about to share my faith in the streets and door-to-door in Toronto and Montreal.  I was blown away by how effective the Christians in my group were.  I saw marvelous paranormal mannifestations. 

Each seeker imagines that their paranormal manifestations are special.  Other seekers must survey and compare them as each alleges them and draw their own conclusions.  Hawkeye, why not share yours?  I will be posting more of mine on my "Healing of a Cripple" thread.  By the way, since that word bothers you, I would delete it if I could, but it is too late.  I never otherwise use the word, but it seemed the only appropriate word for the lady's dire condition.

Don

As for Hawkeye's request for proof that God exists, I will throw in my two cents.  First off what I'm going to argue for is an inductive proof; meaning given these lines of evidence it is more likely than not that God exists, not a deductive proof like one might find in geometry or calculus.  So from the outset Hawkeye may disagree with me since he is trying to set up impossible ground rules it seems.  But if he / others are willing to think logically, built on evidence, then inductive proofs can more than lay a solid groundwork for a faith that is very reasonable.  In other words, I believe based on scientific and historical evidence that it makes more sense to be a Christian than an atheist, agnostic, scientific materialist, or new ager.
  First off, there is a beginning to the universe.  We know from experience that everything that begins to exist has a cause.  The universe began to exist.  And therefore the universe must have a cause.  However we also know through physics that the moment of the big bang was the beginning of space and time.  There was no time before the beginning of the universe, in our sense of the word time.  So our universe was literally began by something that is beyond space and time.  We also know that this thing chose to have this event happen.  We know roughly this was a choice because we could have not had a universe at all.  So what this shows is that something caused the universe to come into existence, that seemed to be operating with a choice, that was outside our physical causality, space, and time.  Making a choice implies that this is a person; a personality.  This personality is immaterial, incredibly (all?) powerful, and eternal, as in not bound by space and time.  Does this mean it was the Christian God?  Not at this point no; it could have been a pantheon of Gods at this point that caused these events; or another version of God altogether.
  Secondly we know that the laws of the universe, and the constants that were set up in these laws, were fine tuned for the possibility of life.  One example would be the constant that is in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  I believe the example that Stephen Hawking gives is that if the constant was one millionth stronger (a very small amount), than the universe would have collapsed back in on itself after the big bang, and if it was something like one millionth weaker (again, a very small amount lesser than what it is), then we would have a universe where stars and planets wouldn't form; a universe of Hydrogen and Helium gas.  This is one example among hundreds however; there are many, many of these examples of constants being set at just the right value to allow for life, and the idea is called the anthropic principle.  The more we learn scientifically the more we learn that our universe has been fine tuned for life.  So then, as we update our conclusion, we know that something exists that is immaterial, eternal, incredibly if not all powerful, astoundingly intelligent, and a creator in the sense of setting up the laws of the universe in a sensible way that allows for the possibility of life.  This doesn't prove God deductively in the way that Hawkeye is looking for (deductive) proof, but it does start to give powerful indications of what caused our physical, material universe.
  Third I would argue that morality exists.  There are actions that are clearly right or clearly wrong.  It is wrong to torture babies for fun.  So the question arises, where does this morality come from?  Or more correctly, what is the basis of morality?  I would argue that the basis of morality lies in the existence of something that is absolutely (not relatively) good; a moral code or expectation of behavior.  A counter argument here is that our morality is governed by societies that we live in.  The problem then is that societal morality degenerates quickly into moral relativism.  One's society cannot be better than one other's society if moral relativism exists; they are simply competing claims to who is right.  In other words, I could say that in the society that I live in, it is fine to torture babies for fun, and you would have no justification to argue against that.  However, if we are being honest with ourselves, we know that torturing babies is simply wrong.  One could argue that this is because of the society that I grew up in; I would argue that society does play a role, but torturing babies for fun is objectively, absolutely wrong.  If there is something that is absolutely wrong, then there must be a line to judge that problem against; a right type of expected behavior to judge the wrongness against.  This implies that there is a goodness to the universe that is inherent in the universe as well.  I would say that this suggests, but doesn't prove, that this being that is immaterial, incredibly powerful and intelligent, outside of time, and able to cause physical reality changes, also has put into place a code of conduct for the universe.  Yes, this code is usually not black or white, but sometimes it is black or white.  This implies a law giving component of whoever this being or beings are that are immaterial, incredibly powerful, outside of space and time, and creators.
  Fourth I would argue that life and moral choices have meaning.  Make no mistake; if God and the afterlife don't exist, than life is meaningless.  Worse yet, it is a sick joke for most of humanity that is suffering.  The only way that life has any meaning at all is if it matters how we treat others.  If it doesn't matter at all, then there is no value to anything; there is nothing of lasting permanence, there are no real achievements and suffering is not meaningful or redemptive; it simply is sick.  There are about 3000 kids who die from malaria every day.  These kids just have short lives of suffering with no setting of things right; no chance at betterment, no justice, and their lives have absolutely no meaning.
  Lastly the life and example of Jesus is the example of the character of this creator that is incredibly powerful, intelligent, outside of space and time but able to affect space and time, and a creator who is also a lawgiver.  It's hard to dismiss Jesus; he is a polarizing figure.  As C.S. Lewis pointed out, Jesus claimed to be God, and that gives us three logical responses.  Option one is Jesus was not God and knew it; he was a liar.  Option two is Jesus was not God and was confused about that fact; in that case he was insane.  And the last logical option is that Jesus is who he said he was; God incarnate.  Those really are our only 3 logical options.   Just to say that Jesus was an 'ascended master', or to call him a prophet like the Muslims do, or just make him out to be a moral teacher is logically ridiculous; because he also, along with leading the most incredible exemplary human life, he also claimed to be God incarnate, taking on human weaknesses, and perfectly demonstrating how we should live our lives, and saving humanity in the process as well.  He is not simply a nice guy, or someone who can fit into other systems of thought; he is either the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.  Nice guy is not an option.  So from this we can update our view of God, based on science and history:  God is immaterial and eternal (but can influence and cause events in our physical universe), is incredibly intelligent (if not all knowing), incredibly powerful (if not all powerful), a creator, a lawgiver, and gave a perfect example of his character through his human life here on earth, the life of Jesus.  Much more about God's character is revealed through the life of Jesus.  This is a proof of God's existence, and proof that Christianity is more logical, and makes more sense, than any other option; although it is not a deductive proof.  So if one is willing to read with an open mind then they may take something from this; but if you are looking to argue than maybe not.  Many people react negatively towards Christianity or Jesus; they claim to be tolerant towards everything but are very intolerant towards Christianity.  I'm open to semi constructive debate or criticism.  By the way if you want to hear someone who is much better than explaining these things than I am, download any of William Lane Craig's debates in mp3 format.  He has debated popular figures as well as academics; including Richard Hitchens as an example.