About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

The universe is no fluke, Pope Benedict XVI says

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Pope BenedictWhy are we here? Many cosmologists think that everything—not just life on Earth but the planets, the stars, the entire observable universe—is a roll of the dice writ large. Other universes within a grander multiverse have entirely different properties, not to mention completely different laws of physics, based on different rolls of those cosmic dice.

Pope Benedict XVI might beg to differ. The birth of our universe was not in any way random, he said December 6 during a sermon to thousands at the Vatican, according to Reuters. Benedict’s speech was given on the day that the Epiphany—the coming of the Magi—is observed in the Western church.

"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," the Pope said, according to the wire service. Reuters reports that the Pope’s sermon held that "God’s mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the big bang" but does not quote Benedict explicitly mentioning the big bang theory. "Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," Benedict said.

Maybe now cosmologists will stop contemplating the cosmos through the lens of their own theories—worrying about how the universe began, whether our universe is but one of many within a multiverse, and whether time and space may have existed in some kind of pre–big bang cosmic past life. Then again, probably not.

Photo of Pope Benedict courtesy Tadeusz Górny via Wikimedia Commons

Rights & Permissions

Comments 50 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Elderlybloke 5:21 pm 01/7/2011

    It seems we are on the same wavelength .
    Peace and joy to you.

    Link to this
  2. 2. landonthegr8 5:27 pm 01/7/2011

    And to you as well. :-)

    Link to this
  3. 3. grunt 5:41 pm 01/7/2011

    There has been a scientific study done on what is known as Near Death Experiences and what happens to people who have this experience.The Website is which gives an in depth study of this phenomenon which seems to relate to a change in frequency. This could be the next step in the coming together of Science and Religion.Check it out

    Link to this
  4. 4. tharriss 5:46 pm 01/7/2011

    Ignorance is bliss.

    Link to this
  5. 5. Kristoffer 6:02 pm 01/7/2011

    Wow. Breaking News: Pope of Catholic Church believes God created the universe. I am floored by this unbelievable revelation.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Nick222 6:05 pm 01/7/2011

    Well, landonthegr8, @22 you said "good night" but then @26 you came back with "Maybe you are aware that quantum mechanics is a supporter of the God theory." Ya gotta be kidding! Besides, there is no "God theory", is all just primitive, silly, speculation. Or is it that you did go to bed and were dreaming? Dream on.

    Link to this
  7. 7. Kristoffer 6:08 pm 01/7/2011

    I think you might be agnostic then? Or "spiritual" rather than religious? Because if you don’t believe that Jesus is the son of God, then technically you aren’t a christian, right? Not preaching or anything; I’m an atheist. Your position is very interesting and unique.

    Link to this
  8. 8. benvan04 6:32 pm 01/7/2011

    The Pope could hold God in the highest esteem, if he held God capable of creating a world in which the world runs automatically. Such a world would not need God. God could sit back and be surprised by the shenanagins of his own creation. But such a world would not need religion. That is why the Pope would never envision such a world. The Pope needs to see a world dependent on God and God as the grand puppeteer, and religion as his loud and righteous little helper.

    Link to this
  9. 9. raulpodesta 8:55 pm 01/7/2011

    As I see it, God is a creation of the human mind, created the only way our mind can create, at his image and likeness. But this does not deny the possible existence of a creation that exceeds our understanding. Everything it is say about Tao, is what Tao is not.

    Link to this
  10. 10. mishatrettenbach 10:02 pm 01/7/2011

    "… he said December 6 …. Benedict’s speech was given on the day that the Epiphany–the coming of the Magi–is observed in the Western church."

    There must be alternative universes. In mine, Epiphany is on January 6, not December 6.

    Link to this
  11. 11. landonthegr8 10:41 pm 01/7/2011

    Hmm.. Perhaps. Though I’m not sure. I truthfully doubt that any one religion has any more credence than the next. Honestly, due to mans lack of understanding of whatever the true nature of God is, I don’t see how any set of ideas could be "right". I personally like the main message that Jesus taught, and because of his story and its survival over these many years, I believe it has a special place in my ideals for faith. His divinity is a hard pill to swallow though.

    Link to this
  12. 12. landonthegr8 10:45 pm 01/7/2011

    Woah. I had forgotten about you. You are partially right. I AM falling asleep from your attempts to argue anything here. Look, just goggle "quantum mechanics god theory" and you may learn something new today. And to think… I would’ve missed your comment if I hadn’t come back home early. :-) Lucky me.

    Link to this
  13. 13. jeepien 11:11 pm 01/7/2011

    Either change the title to "Religious American" or quit reporting on the Pope’s view of the universe. Was there so little science this month that you could spare the column space?

    Link to this
  14. 14. lowhuakin 11:23 pm 01/7/2011

    If we accept what the Pope says,the scientific study of cosmology is closed. No further research is required because whatever you see through the best telescope are created by God. It is that simple.

    Link to this
  15. 15. laszlogm 1:27 am 01/8/2011

    One of you writes" "In the end, I doubt that either science or faith will ever rule each other out. Mainly because I believe they are symbiotic in nature."

    No, they are not symbiotic. They are antagonistic, they are the ultimate opposits. And if you are willing to think these kind of issues over, you will come up with the conclusion: faith has no right to say anything about the matters of the universe or cosmos… Faith must stay where it belongs: the private sphere. By the way, this was the original American idea…

    Link to this
  16. 16. RHill 2:02 am 01/8/2011

    You should join us on the Atheism forum at where we flog the dying horse of religion virtually 24/7. You’ll find some of the sharpest intellects in the Blogosphere engaged in open and entertaining discussions with representatives from a variety of faiths. I’m sure the Pope’s latest revelation will generate a new thread.

    Link to this
  17. 17. way2ec 2:27 am 01/8/2011

    God is everywhere. God is everything. So God is the Universe. In the beginning was the word and the word was God, which works for my puny brain, as in before the Big Bang, which to Science is even more "unknowable" than the first moments after the Big Bang… so since it is totally unknowable, I get to imagine God. God created the Universe, as in Big Bang. God is Now, always has been, always will be… so now God is the fourth dimension of Time, omnipresent, infinite. You’re a scientist that "believes" that it is a finite Universe, i.e. has an end? Whatever was "before" the Big Bang gets to "be" whatever comes after the "end" of the Universe or Universes. You’re a scientist that "believes" that there is no end? Again, as my puny brain tries to "grok" (Stranger in a Strange Land) or wrap itself around Infinity, God works just as well, and I get to use the pronoun Him although I prefer Creator, more inclusive, don’t want to leave Her out, or have my Creator be an IT. I agree with Hawkings, don’t need a Universe to have a God, nor a God to have a Universe. Pope says you gotta have God to have the Universe. Whatever. And if billions of galaxies isn’t enough "evidence" for inquiring minds that want to Know, we can always go the other way, into subatomic particles and keep dividing everything in half, endlessly, and my puny brain says, Ok, God is there too. Does God exist? Do I exist? Or am I just dreaming I live? Or live to dream? I have pinched myself while dreaming and didn’t feel anything but then didn’t know how to wake myself up, so kept on dreaming. Some of you commentators here sure get your underwear all in a bunch. I am still putting big marbles on a sheet trying to figure out what Gravity "is", so help me God.

    Link to this
  18. 18. way2ec 3:01 am 01/8/2011

    To laszlogm, ¿"faith has no right to say anything about the matters of the universe"? Ouch, ’cause I still have a lot of faith in science. And we use science to study what faith "is". And is science one of those "matters" of the universe? What are some of the other matters of the universe? Perhaps the nature of "knowing"?

    To lowhuakin, "whatever you see through the best telescope (are) created by God"… as with Hawkings, we don’t need God to have a Universe, but if the entire Universe, both everything seen and unseen, was created by, or is by definition God, EITHER WAY, we need something, science, cosmology, at least a good imagination, to study, understand, explain… With or without God, why does the apple fall from the tree. Or magnetism.

    Link to this
  19. 19. way2ec 3:30 am 01/8/2011

    To jeepien, and all others who try to limit science… before astronomy, astrology, before chemistry, alchemy, and before science? And before religion? If Scientific American and or the scientific community were to limit itself to "pure science", I wouldn’t have been able to go to a lecture in a science series called "Physics and the Mind of God". Would we be able to use what was learned through astrology and alchemy? Would you or will you complain if SciAm were to include articles about the "presciences"? Like doctors who rejected anything associated with eastern meditation techniques and deny us everything from stress and pain reduction techniques, the mysteries of acupuncture? Would the scientific study of the "art" in the caves of Lascaux be off limits? And we are only now "discovering", "scientifically speaking" that a doctor (insert shaman, witch doctor, curandero, priest, apostle) has better healing "power" through touch, vs those who don’t touch… pity the women and their babies lost in the "hospitals" of the past, the doctors thought "purification" as just bogus primitive rituals… and exactly what IS the placebo effect? The benzene ring was "discovered" in a dream, snake biting its tail? Quit putting everything into such little discrete boxes.

    Link to this
  20. 20. hafnium 3:36 am 01/8/2011

    The only reason this item has a place under sciam’s website is to show how absurd the idea of "separate magesteria" is. Religion will never be able to keep away from the basic issues of science, drawn to them like a moth to an open flame, and with the same results.

    Link to this
  21. 21. Dogen 6:51 am 01/8/2011

    I’m not sure that the musings of the leader of a desert pederastic cult, is authority enough to change my view of the nature of cosmos.Outside of mythological account of creation stated in the Bible , what else is this opinion based upon?

    Link to this
  22. 22. Nick222 9:07 am 01/8/2011

    Well, landonthegr8, as you suggested I did google the god theory (cough, cough: it’s not a theory; it’s wild speculation by primitives, without a shred of data to support it), which of course led me to Haisch’s book and subsequently to reviews of the book posted at Amazon. I’ll quote a few of those reviews here, continuing on additional posts when the character limitations on each post restrict:

    Review by "Nicole" at Amazon (p. 3 of reviews):
    While Dr. Haisch rejects the classic image of god and heaven, he does hold to the classic attributes of god, that of an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient entity. That brings me to my other problem with this theory. The idea that ‘god wanted to experience existence’. I agree with Dr. Haisch that experiencing something is different from just knowing it. But what is that difference? I think that experience brings a deeper level of knowledge. For example, you know that the Antarctic is very cold, but till you go there you do not have the knowledge of exactly how cold it is and how that feels. An omniscient god would already have that deeper knowledge, it would already know exactly what the experience of standing outside in the Antarctic in the dead of winter feels like — therefore no need to experience existence. Also a entity that is in perfect bliss should be perfectly content, the wanting to experience something implies some sort of discontent, a need or at least a desire — not perfect bliss. Which brings me back to: "What does god need a universe for?" with still no answer.

    Review by Patrick Reich (p. 8):
    The author’s thesis is… that the purpose of creation is to allow the infinite intelligence (i.e. God) to experience life in an infinite number of ways through everything that participates in creation.

    Review by Erik D. Wiegardt (p. 9):
    In a nutshell [Haisch's thesis is]… God is thought, the cosmos is the body of God, and we are all fragments of the divine. Pure Stoic theology.

    Link to this
  23. 23. Nick222 9:07 am 01/8/2011

    Review by Dave (p. 11):
    [Haisch] has no further knowledge of a god to offer than a Muslim ready to vists his 70 virgins. The word "god" in all honesty can only be a replacement for the phrase "I don’t know". Has the author really conveyed knowledge beyond "I don’t know"? No… I think that those who would profess to be scientists may possess some temporary understanding (current theory) of the nature of our world and universe, but they really have nothing to add that relates this understanding to a god. If I did not think some of these scientists were sincere, I would accuse them all of trying to make money from the spiritual needs of their fellow man by selling snake oil.

    Review by Jeffrey "skeptical" (p.11):
    [Haisch's book is] a nice piece of fluff for those who want to be comforted.

    Review by M. Azizogul "Mada" (p.11):
    Haisch is quick to fill the gaps with God (or Godhead)with no strong arguments supporting his theory. At the end of book I felt I read the Bible mixed with brand new popular science dispersed in.

    Review by Aeronautics Doc "Still Looking" (p.11)
    This is just a play off the Holy Spirit with a little bit of eastern mystic theology mixed in… No God Theory here. I threw the book away – not worth keeping. Maybe Mr. Haisch is trying to start his own religion. L. Ron Hubbard beat him to it.

    Link to this
  24. 24. LangThang 10:16 am 01/8/2011

    Talking about God looklike lying. If Pope tell me exactly how many hair he has on his own head, I will think again but not believe yet. People do not know himself how can make sure some thing out of touch.
    He creats this arguement with the only one purpose to turn media out from laundering money.

    Link to this
  25. 25. bigperk 12:24 pm 01/8/2011

    Only want to point out that Stephen Hawking, unlike Richard Dawkins, did NOT say "science has successfully refuted the existence of God". He in fact said that "We claim, however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings".

    I take his PUBLIC stance (whatever his private views) to be that science does not NEED a God for explanations, NOT that it disproves God’s existence.

    He seems to have been extensively misunderstood (and MISREPRESENTED – deliberately perhaps?) over this issue.

    Link to this
  26. 26. grunt 2:24 pm 01/8/2011

    What about the metaphysical aspect. That which is there but we cannot see. Dark matter, Light, Gravity, The Mind,Neutrinos, The soul.Just because we can’t see these objects doesn’t mean they don’t exists.

    Link to this
  27. 27. jeepien 2:57 pm 01/8/2011

    "That which is there but we cannot see. Dark matter, Light, Gravity, The Mind,Neutrinos, The soul.Just because we can’t see these objects doesn’t mean they don’t exists. " –grunt

    The trouble is, there is evidence to support the existence of light (which, umm, we actually CAN see), gravity, the mind, and neutrinos.

    There is no evidence of the existence of a soul.

    Science is belief based upon evidence. Faith is belief without such a basis. I would welcome a scientific article about the properties of the human brain that makes it so susceptible to belief in magic beings and the like. But apart from such studies, I have no interest in the religious pronouncements of the Pope, which have no place in a journal with the word "Scientific" in its title.

    Link to this
  28. 28. maxsmart 3:13 pm 01/8/2011

    But the universe is full of flukes anyway… but most likely it is everything including nothing, everthing is in it and there is no outside or inside… it is both inside out and outside in… it doesn’t begin and doesn’t end because the beginning is always the end…

    Link to this
  29. 29. maxsmart 3:16 pm 01/8/2011

    If there were a god that’s what it would be the whole the is greater than the sum of it’s parts…

    Link to this
  30. 30. grunt 4:00 pm 01/8/2011

    Yes and we are a part of that whole and our journey is to go back to that which we came from. See to take another look at the other side.

    Link to this
  31. 31. way2ec 6:05 pm 01/8/2011

    to jeepien, no evidence of "end" of Universe, so no end? No evidence of "pre-Big Bang", so there was no "existence", no nothing before? No evidence from inside of Black Hole, so nothing inside? No evidence of other universes, so no others? And if "soul" is how one might try to describe the bridge between universes? or going through a Black Hole and emerging on the other side through a White Hole? Which is not to say that you need or don’t need to believe, especially without evidence, but beware how one limits oneself. It is like you are one of the ones that said the Earth is flat, you had evidence of it being flat, no evidence of it being a sphere "floating" in space or revolving around the Sun, not that the evidence wasn’t there, you just didn’t have access to it, yet. And how does something that exists in the space-time continuum of our universe go about gathering evidence from anything that might exist in as yet hypothetical otherness, the other universe(s). Parallel lines do cross each other, in hyperbolic space, and I can crochet a model to prove it, but not that many years ago I would have flunked a math test, from lack of evidence.

    Link to this
  32. 32. way2ec 6:33 pm 01/8/2011

    To hafnium, Science continues to try and answer some of our "basic issues", Where did we come from? Star dust? When? What is the nature of existence? Are we alone in the Universe? Are there other life forms that are conscious of self, of others? Is there a group consciousness, as in ant colonies, bee colonies? Science will never be able to keep away from the basic issues of religion. Moth to an open flame works for me, both ways or all-ways. Metaphors, Universe is God, God is the Light and I am but a moth. Perhaps the biggest difference between science and religion, in my humble opinion, is that science tends to avoid the Why? as in, Why do we exist? Why does the Universe exist? But as the moth to the flame, Why is the Universe expanding? Why are we continuing to evolve? Religion has little hold on me, as in making me into a True Believer, but I do so love the questions. Science is at its best with its evidence. Where science can’t provide evidence, at least not yet, one gets to enjoy ALL the possibilities. Thank you Hawking, We can have a Universe without God, or God without a Universe, or both. There was no evidence of exo-planets not that many years ago. How many scientists said ergo, no exo-planets. No evidence of extra-terrestrial life, ergo, no other life forms? No evidence of spirit beings, therefore no existence of spirit, not even as a way to describe one of the other universes that scientists have hypothesized?

    Link to this
  33. 33. Nick222 6:48 am 01/9/2011

    I seriously disagree with the comments that this article is inappropriate for Scientific American. Scientific Americans and science in America are under siege by religious yahoos such as the Pope. Scientific American does significant service to science in America by calling attention to blatant balderdash promoted by such yahoos, since such balderdash unfortunately influences many Americans and, therefore, the funding of science and the education of future scientists.

    Link to this
  34. 34. WhyWillItBe 7:03 pm 01/9/2011

    It looks like a few here have touched on the that notion that Religion and Science need not be mutually exclusive, but rather and perhaps symbiotic.

    Just a few musings:

    - The notion of a multi-verse with different rules that in our current universe could indeed be analog to Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Olympus, Valhalla, and more. If the theory of a multi-verse holds true, then those places could in fact co-exist with our known Universe outside our (all but cursory) understanding. Would there be a Universe in the Multi-Verse where [Christ] really did walk the [Earth] and perform miracles and get Crucified and did go to Heaven? Could this Universe be that Universe?

    - If the spirit exists, wouldn’t it be likely that eventually we may detect an associated particle? Let’s call it a Spiriton. If a Spiriton were to be found, would it help link Science and Religion? Are Strings Spiritons?

    - Why does creation lore in Genesis so closely mirror Big Bang Theory? Did the Ancients tap into some underlying Scientific Truth? Did our Ancients learn from some other Ancients (Aliens?) and just had limited language with which to retell the stories? Or is it that our Scientists today cannot extract themselves from their own heritage, and thus all theories, Big Bang or otherwise, will look like the Ancient Lore? Does it make a difference if the Lore is Judeo-Christian or Vedic or Shinto or otherwise?

    I’m sure I can come up with more, but these are ponderable enough for the moment.

    Link to this
  35. 35. WhyWillItBe 7:09 pm 01/9/2011

    As in "I am the Alpha and the Omega" in the Book of Revelation verses 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13?

    Link to this
  36. 36. WhyWillItBe 7:13 pm 01/9/2011

    Regarding Spiritons as particles. I need to amend that to ask if Spiritons would be particles or waves? or both simultaneously?

    Link to this
  37. 37. Ronnie 8:08 pm 01/9/2011

    I am ashamed of some remarks made here, more like teenager knowing no limits of trash talk or respect. Do you really think you are so smart you can discount God’s existance? As I look at particle physics I see a design so masterful we are only now starting to understand how the atom works. Quarks and anti-quarks create strong and weak interactions that give protons and anti-protons their respective spin, orbit and alignments in all atoms. The colors of electrons are not by chance, they are controlled by the corresponding wavelenght found in sub-atomic particles, this is seen in high density mater,CFL. It is truely the most beautiful thing I have ever seen, it is God’s hand at work. The Pope is correct in saying the Universe was created by God.

    Link to this
  38. 38. Nick222 6:56 am 01/10/2011

    Well, Ronnie, I can understand why you’re "ashamed".

    In answer to your question: Yes, "[I} really think [I'm] so smart [I] can discount God’s existence", since doing so is really quite simple: for details, see my (admittedly) crude estimate for the probability that a creator god exists that’s given at . The result is that the probability for the existence of such a god is certainly much less than 1 part in 10^500. Consequently, the most certain knowledge that humans have been able to gain, even more certain than the knowledge that we exist (for, with a probability of about 1 part in 10^25, we may be just simulations in a humongous computer game) is that there are no gods and never were any.

    Shamefully, the Pope’s "god" (and apparently yours) is an abbreviation for "I dunno".

    Link to this
  39. 39. Ronnie 8:14 am 01/10/2011

    You said, "we may be just simulations in a humongous computer game) is that there are no gods and never were any". You sound rediculous, that is just a theory with no basis in science.

    The Standard Model (SM) and it’s theoretical framework which describes the known elementary particles such as the Higgs boson that
    is so far unobserved but new understandings are now on the horizon. The Standard Model (SM)
    has six flavors of quarks, up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom, all of these quarks have corresponding Antiquarks that contain the same
    mass and means lifetime along with spin of their respective quarks but
    an electrical charge that is opposite each other (antiquarks vs quarks).
    Quarks posses color charge that cause them to engage in strong interaction between different quarks causing the formation of composite particle known as hadrons.
    A property that quarks posses is called color charge, they are labeled blue, green and red, correspondingly antiquarks carry anti colors
    allowing for attraction and repulsion between quarks of different charges. Creating combinations of the three colors is called strong
    interaction mediated by particles called gluons. Quarks are known to engage in interactions of the four forces, electromagnetism, gravity,
    strong nuclear and weak nuclear while having electric charge, mass, color charge and flavor which is described as Color flavor locking
    (CFL) is seen in ultra high density quark matter.
    Within the Higgs boson lies/contains the Singular wavelength which carries the
    instructions for the spin, orbital, and alignment of quarks and antiquarks which
    ultimately control the spin,orbital alignment of protons and anti-protons within the
    atom with certainty.
    The Quantum Singular wavelength color harmonic vibration determines the production of all atoms construction in the matrix. From a single color
    wavelength harmonic vibration came the complete instructions for all atomic
    construction in the Universe. Atomic and subatomic particles have exact formations in production of pure atoms, e.g., spin, attraction,
    repulsion, mass, means lifetime
    that was formed at the moment the Universe began.
    Using ORIE, Optical Remote Imaging Enhancement technology I was able to follow the color wavelength beyond a chemical compound in an atom, each wavelength such as 391 nm has it’s own color vibration harmonic. This produces a "pure atomic" compound with an atomic number. There are no accidents, God does exist, open your mind, there is more I have not told you about certainty of amtomic construct.

    Link to this
  40. 40. Laertes 9:33 am 01/10/2011

    Wow, a four paragraph article that produces more than 70 comments. Nice going, Matson. Now you have source material for your next article, ‘How & Why Religious News Pisses Off Scientists’. It would make great reading in Mind & Brain.

    Link to this
  41. 41. nbecker 10:17 am 01/10/2011

    Since when does someone’s religious opinion warrant publication in a Scientific American?

    Link to this
  42. 42. Ronnie 12:50 pm 01/10/2011

    Particle physics scientists must now face the fact that the Universes creation was not random, it is exact, precise, calculated and masterfully designed. Atomic construction uses color like a paint machine that starts out empty of color. The color and anti-color mixing produces the beautiful color compounds with each electron radiating a single wavelength spectrum. The strong and weak interaction create the quaks/anti-quarks spin, rotation and alignment around the protons and anti-protons. This give a strong/weak interaction controling exact spin, rotation and alignment for the protons that produce the atomic number for each indiviual atom. This is certainty, there is more to this process and it maybe beyond some who are reading this but simple I have keep it…….

    Link to this
  43. 43. Didonai 5:12 pm 01/12/2011

    The Russian word for "Black Hole" is the English word for anus. So, this sure gives support that the Pope and catholic priests in general know what they talk about when they comment on astrophysics since they have three thousand years of practical experience with the anus. They are real specialists in mudpumping, for sure! Go ahead, Papa… give us some more SCIENCE! UHHHHHHHHHH!

    Link to this
  44. 44. Didonai 5:13 pm 01/12/2011

    The Russian word for "Black Hole" is the English word for anus. So, this sure gives support that the Pope and catholic priests in general know what they talk about when they comment on astrophysics since they have three thousand years of practical experience with the anus. They are real specialists in mudpumping, for sure! Go ahead, Papa… give us some more SCIENCE! UHHHHHHHHHH!

    Link to this
  45. 45. Nick222 6:38 pm 01/12/2011

    Ronnie, unless you are Ronald Nussbeck, you should put quotation marks around the material that you have copied. And if you are Ronald Nussbeck (or co-worker Ron Stewart), then it would seem appropriate to explain why you are now claiming that god exists, when the report at ) conveys your opinion that:

    "Breakthroughs in new imaging technology developed by the firm of Ron Stewart/Ron Nussbeck may now permit human observers to identify what appear to be planet-sized extraterrestrial UFOs exiting from dimensional portals in the Sun… The resulting images and analysis arguably visually confirm the existence of extraterrestrial or interdimensional giant UFOs exiting from what the images show as portals or tunnels on the Sun… The January 18, 2010 solar UFO wave constitutes a disclosure of their presence by extraterrestrials – By entering our solar system through the Sun’s star gate and being monitored and recorded by NASA’s Stereo spacecraft, extraterrestrial (interdimensional) civilizations have de facto disclosed their presence in space ships as large as the Earth…"

    I mean, you would probably be more convincing if you stuck to a single story line.

    Link to this
  46. 46. eogord 8:31 pm 01/12/2011

    It is interesting that there is a meeting of minds here.
    One remembers Einstein’s proclamation that ‘ God does not play dice.

    Link to this
  47. 47. Parxek 7:14 pm 01/13/2011

    Have so much people forgot Plato’s cave allegory? Neither Science nor religion got all answers to God’s or universe existence. We merely see the shadows on the wall. Religion get us part of the picture, science add other. If you want to have a third(or less)of the whole you can stuck with one of them. Time had show me that you had to be a scientist where Science applies and a catholic where it is also applicable (I am not excluding other belief which deserve same respect).
    Science had shown me to appreciate and explain God’s work, Religion show me to appreciate life and our existence. Poor of those whose science had become their religion….

    Link to this
  48. 48. Ronnie 11:28 pm 01/14/2011

    Yes, I am Ronald Nussbeck, I did postulate that the Our Sun could be used as a Star Gate for inter dimensional travel by extraterrestrials as observed using NASA’s images. Massive nuclear/electromagnetic energy outputs create Sun spots that create brief openings in the fabric of sapce. Sun spots could be door ways or tunnels to outside our Universe and under the current laws of phsics is possible. Aliens do not preclude God’s existence or change atomic and sub-atomic particles role in the creation of our Universe by God, do not allow yourself to think Aliens are God. Particle physics allows us to understand that the creation of the Universe was not random or an accident, it is certainty, deliberate, calculated and exact. The color, spin and orbital alignment of quarks/anti-quarks determine the protons spin and orbital alignment within a specific atom. The construction of each atoms can be best understood by looking at them with 3 dimensional imaging and adding 1 dimension of time (motion), not by two dimensional thinking.

    Link to this
  49. 49. brumon 6:52 pm 01/17/2011

    Oops! Catholic Epiphany comes on January 6th, not December 6th…

    Link to this
  50. 50. Ronnie 7:42 pm 01/22/2011

    Just because I have evidence that Aliens exist that does not preclude God’s existence, you don’t really think aliens are God? Do you?

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article