The Invisible Everywhere: Believing Is Seeing continues receiving glowing reviews. To God alone be the glory! Here are just three of them.

Multiverse Madness

If you’ve been to a movie theater, played a modern video game, or even walked down the toy aisle at your local store recently, you’ve undoubtedly come across one of the most hyped concepts of our modern era: The Multiverse Hypothesis.

From blockbuster superhero epics and Oscar-winning films to animated series and video games, today’s pop culture is in love with the idea that there are an infinite number of parallel universes - and quite possibly infinite versions of you living out every possible scenario. It’s a wildly entertaining concept that makes for great comic books, fantastic action figures … and, of course, enormous profits.

But while the Multiverse Hypothesis is being paraded around the public square as cutting-edge, established science, the truth is far less glamorous. In this week’s letter - at the risk of being branded a killjoy - I’ll pull back the curtain on why this idea was actually created, why it has utterly failed, and why its future is quite bleak.

I. Desperate Beginnings

The idea of multiple universes was conceived out of desperation by different physicists at different times for different reasons. At least two of them were the result of modern science coming face-to-face with the supernatural. (Another notable one, involving String Theory, will be the topic of a future letter.)

Running From Supernatural Weirdness

The first rigorous, mathematical argument for parallel universes appeared in the 1957 doctoral thesis of Hugh Everett III, a grad student at Princeton University. He proposed it as a solution to the vexing paradox in quantum mechanics called the “measurement problem.”

This problem is commonly illustrated by Schrödinger’s Cat, a hypothetical feline kept inside a closed box. According to the translogical laws of quantum mechanics the animal is both dead and alive at the same time - a vexing paradox, indeed.

Everett’s proposed solution - which came to be called the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics - is that many different versions of Schrodinger’s Cat exist in many different parallel universes. In one version the cat is alive and well; in another, dead as a doornail. In still other versions, the cat is in various states of well being.

Everett’s brainchild immediately tickled the public imagination. But as often happens in modern science, the MWI only made a weird situation even weirder.

Running from a Supernatural Creator

The most popularized version of the multiverse originated in the 1980s with Russian-American physicist Andrei Linde. He elaborated his idea in two published papers titled, “Chaotic Inflation” (1983) and “Eternal Chaotic Inflation”(1986).

Linde conceived the Multiverse Hypothesis to solve a crisis that to this day still plagues modern cosmology: our universe’s perfect vital signs. Please note, the vital signs aren’t nearly perfect, they’re 100% perfect!

By vital signs I mean all the numerical descriptors of the universe that tell us how it’s wired. They’re akin to your own vital signs, which doctors check to see how well or poorly you’re wired.

The vital signs of our universe - what we scientists call “fundamental constants of nature” (e.g., the strength of gravity, the mass of electrons, the expansion rate of the cosmos, the strong and weak nuclear forces) - have numerical values so utterly perfect it defies human comprehension. If the value of just one of these vital signs was off by a tiny, tiny bit our universe would be desolate: no stars, no planets, no life.

Put plainly, when we “doctors” check the universe’s vital signs, we discover it’s wired in a way that clearly argues against its being an accident. Against all odds our beloved universe appears to be deliberately tailormade for life.

For secularists, this is very bad news because it discredits the canonical atheist-materialist worldview. In order to save face they desperately need a way to explain away the miracle of our existence without invoking God.

Enter Linde’s Multiverse Hypothesis, which goes like this: If there are an infinite number of universes with randomly assigned laws of physics, then by pure, blind luck one of them is guaranteed to have the long string of perfect vital signs - like a long row of cherries on a slot machine. We just happen to live in the cosmos that by chance hit the jackpot.

II. History of Failure

Since the late 1950s scientists have eagerly sought ways to find ways to put meat on the bones of the various multiverse hypotheses, but so far they’ve failed. Here are two examples of their many failures.

Read more

All too often I hear someone demand that I prove God exists. “Prove it!” they exclaim, “Or else, shut up about it!”

Recently, a reporter for a major, widely respected international publication wrote a very positive, well-meaning article about my new movie, The Invisible Everywhere, for which I’m genuinely grateful. It mistakenly claims, however, that I’m actively seeking to prove that God exists.

As I’m about to explain to you, anyone who demands or claims to have proof that God exists doesn’t understand the nature of proof. Alas, it’s a common misunderstanding I know all too well.

Starting in the second grade, when I fell head-over-heels in love with science, I too had a mistaken perception of proof. Naïvely, I saw it as an indisputable, 100-percent, iron-clad way of cementing a truth.

Later in elementary school, when I taught myself geometry, I came to live for those heady moments when I could write “QED,” the three beautiful letters that seal the proof of a theorem - for example, the Pythagorean Theorem. Quod erat demonstratum: Thus, it is proved!

For me, a skinny, nerdy schoolboy, being able to use logic to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt was positively thrilling. It made me feel powerful, even godlike.

But the feeling didn’t last long. As I grew older and my understanding of logic, truth, and proof matured, I came to realize how very childish I’d been.

Rude Awakening - Part I

Today, math, logic, and science are universally hailed as bastions of unassailable, bulletproof truths. But the reality - the proven reality - is they aren’t.

Let’s start with “mathematical proofs.”

Circa 300 BC, Euclid published his now-famous Elements of Geometry. After the Bible, geometry texts are among the most widely published books of all time.

As a boy, what I didn’t understand - and what most people today still don’t - is that the whole of Euclid’s geometry and all its so-called proofs rely on believing in thirty-three unprovable assertions. They fall into three categories: definitions, postulates, and common notions.

Some of Euclid’s unprovable assertions are easy to believe because they’re so obviously true. Like these:

• Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.

• If equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal.

• If equals are subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.

Others, however, are more problematic because they’re illogical, even downright supernatural. Like these:

• A point has no dimension - no length, no width, no depth.

• A line has only one dimension - length.

• A plane has only two dimensions - length and width.

Euclid’s all-important “point” defies logic and the imagination: How can something be said to exist - even hypothetically in our imagination - that has no physical dimension whatsoever?

The same enigma applies to Euclid’s lines and planes. Together with his points, they are unlike the points, lines, and planes we draw or experience in the real world, all of which have three dimensions. They are, quite plainly, not of this world.

Every single so-called geometric “proof,” therefore, is founded on a house of cards as it were. On assumptions that are unrealistic and cannot be proven.

The fact that geometry is nevertheless incredibly useful in the real world is an entirely different subject. A subject that’s deeply mysterious, which I’ll visit in a future Substack letter.

Rude Awakening - Part II

Next, let’s look at “logical proofs.”

As I grew older I learned about the Austrian logician Kurt Gödel. In the early 1930s he used logic to prove - prove! - that logic can’t prove most truths. Logic can’t even prove something so utterly obvious as 2+2 = 4, never mind something so utterly complex and profound as the existence of God.

In one of history’s greatest and most shocking ironies, in other words, Gödel used logic to prove its own terrible weakness. I summarize Gödel’s so-called Incompleteness Theorem this way: Truth is far, far bigger than proof.

In case you’re interested in learning more about Gödel’s bombshell revelation I explain it in greater detail in my book Believing Is Seeing.

Rude Awakening - Part III

Finally, how about “scientific proofs?”

As a naïve scientific geek I lived by the motto, “Prove it!” If something couldn’t be scientifically proven, forget it - I wasn’t willing to believe it.

But I eventually learned something that shook my worldview to its core: My beloved science doesn’t have the clout to prove its own theories, never mind the theory (belief) that God exists. That includes its vaunted tentpole theories of evolution, cosmology, and subatomic particles.

I explain the details of this remarkable impotence in my aforementioned book, but here’s the headline: Science is not just “evidence-based,” as many are wont to boast, it’s also “interpretation-based.” And therein lies the problem.

The scientific method spells out strict rules for collecting evidence. It’s an excellent technique that has proven itself time and again over many centuries.

When it comes to interpreting the collected evidence, however, it’s a free-for-all. Ten different scientists can interpret the same evidence ten different ways - and none of them can ever prove their interpretation is the only right one.

Scientists claim to be guided by a rule of thumb called “Occam's razor,” which argues that the simplest explanation is always the best one, but who says it is? Occam’s Razor is an arbitrary, unprovable rule of thumb.

The reality is that scientists are free to interpret evidence any way they doggone well please. There are no rules; and as I’ve just explained, not even logic can be counted on to guide them to the truth. For as the legendary American mathematician Morris Kline observed: “Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

One more thing about so-called scientific proofs.

Scientists of every era inevitably settle on some kind of consensus interpretation of the available evidence. Think of it as a kind of “group think.”

Time and again, however, history teaches us that science is never settled. Over and over again, the scientific consensus of the day is eventually replaced by a new consensus based on new evidence.

In short, when it comes to scientific theories, there is no such thing as proof. For as Albert Einstein explained: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

Conclusion

For the reasons I’ve explained here - and so many others I’ve learned during my decades-long, winding journey as a once-atheist scientist - I now understand this: The concept of proof is as mythical as the unicorn. In life as in mathematics, logic, and science there is no such thing as 100% certainty.

Science documents this humbling truth in the form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Likewise, the Bible speaks this truth in 1 Corinthians 13:12 (NLT):

The absence of certainty in life requires every one of us, no exceptions, to rely on faith. In other words, every one of us - every atheist included - is a “person of faith.”

Faith isn’t a weakness. It’s a necessary part of life, because so much of the universe we inhabit and that inhabits us can’t be seen, can’t be proven, and can’t even be imagined. We are bathed through and through in mystery.

Even faith itself requires faith. That is, no one’s faith can be 100% certain, 100% perfect, because we are imperfect creatures in an imperfect, fallen world. It’s well known that even the faith of saints goes through periods of grave uncertainty. In theological circles it’s called The Dark Night of the Soul.

Anyone claiming to have faith in science, God or anything else that’s 100% certain, 100% perfect, is being (to put it politely) overly self-righteous.

I regret that my faith in God is necessarily imperfect, because God deserves perfect faith. Nevertheless, even though my faith in Him is necessarily imperfect, it’s unshakeable because it’s firmly grounded on bedrock: the timeless revelations of the Bible and the modern revelations of my beloved science.

If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a Paid or even Founding Subscriber. If you do so, you’ll go from just benefiting from to actually supporting my efforts to speak truth with love to a world sorely in need of both.

Thank you and God bless you.

Love,

Subscribe now

This past week we’ve experienced an explosion of new subscribers - new fellow travelers. If you are one of them, welcome! I’m honored and excited that you’ve chosen to join me and fellow travelers from all over the world on this crazy, fascinating, deeply mysterious journey called life.

According to Substack, my fellow travelers live in all 50 states and 55 different nations. The top five nations represented are the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and India.

I take your journey, your intelligence, and your time very seriously. That’s why I spend hours writing and perfecting each one of my weekly letters to you, published every Wednesday.

Before sending out a letter, Mrs. G, my wife of 34 years, critiques it to make certain I’m making my points clearly. In so many ways, I owe her a debt of gratitude I can never repay.

She and I have a son whom we adopted when he was four. I tell the extraordinary story of how that happened in my book, Believing Is Seeing, which as I write these words is an Amazon Bestseller. As I explain in the book, my wife, son, and I are quite literally a family made in heaven.

#1 in Cosmology

#1 in Science and Religion

#5 in Christian Apologetics.

#898 in ALL books sold on Amazon

I was born in East Los Angeles, fell in love with science in the second grade, and dreamt of becoming a scientist. But after many twists and turns, I became that and so much more - a wholly unexpected outcome I credit to God.

From me on this platform you can expect letters that explore the great invisible unknown - far beyond the familiar territories of just science and just religion. I’m singularly focused on the ill-understood and poorly represented terrain where science and religion - especially Christianity - converge.

As my new movie, The Invisible Everywhere, documents, modern science shattered my atheism and opened my eyes and mind to the existence of God. That’s why, today, I’m fully committed to sharing with the world what I’ve learned from my decades of studying the universe and the human animal. Speaking truth with love.

How did the cosmos get started?

How did life on Earth happen?

Are we just another animal?

Where is the human mind located?

Are we alone?

Is there life after death?

Does modern science discredit the Bible and belief in God?

These are just a few of the countless questions I address on this platform.

We don’t discuss politics here. Instead, we discuss matters that are of eternal importance to you, whatever your politics might be. As Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” (Matthew 22:21 NLT)

I invite your comments on and suggestions for my weekly letters. I want this forum to be used for a discussion among fellow travelers, not weekly lectures from me. I have as much to learn from you as you do from me.

Once again, on behalf of Mrs. G and me, thank you for being part of our thriving community of smart, inquisitive, international explorers.

To God alone be the glory!

In Case You Missed It

I wrote an Op Ed concerning quantum physics and God’s omniscience. On Monday Fox News published it on its front page, where it went viral. Here it is.

If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a Founding or Paid Subscriber. It will help support my efforts to speak truth with love … to a world sorely in need of both.

Subscribe now

Thank you and God bless you.

Love,

Today is the world premiere of The Invisible Everywhere!

After more than a year of sweat, blood, and tears - and, above all, prayers! - the theater doors are now open, globally.

Whoever you are … wherever you are … whatever you believe … whatever you don’t believe … grab your popcorn and drink … then go to TheInvisibleEverywhere.com … get your ticket … and prepare for a stunning journey into the great invisible unknown.

This is not your grandfather’s documentary. This is not your conventional Hollywood movie. It’s a full-length motion picture created by one person (me), using a desktop computer, and consumer-level AI video generators.

We’re told on good authority it’s the first time in human history such a thing has been achieved. Whether it’s true or not …

To God alone be the glory!

Mailbag Ministry

A fellow traveler recently send me this message:

My Reply

Thank you for your understandable question.

AI is causing a great deal of anxiety and disruption, the loss of jobs being one obvious example. I take that matter very seriously and have written extensively about it - most recently in a “30-Minute Science Pocket Guide” I published titled “Artificial Intelligence.” If interested, you can obtain a copy of it here: www.michaelguillen.com

Given that very real, shared concern, I can understand why you would ask: “Why are y’all so proud about using AI to create this [movie], rather than actual human beings?”

There are many reasons I’m proud of The Invisible Everywhere and how it was made. Briefly, here are three of them.

1. This movie would not have been made without AI.

The previous movie I made - LITTLE RED WAGON - was produced in the traditional way. It required $8 million, a crew of hundreds, and five years to produce. It was shown in theaters, then sold as DVDs by Walmart (where it became a bestseller), then shown on Netflix. Currently, it’s on Amazon Prime, Apple TV, Fandango, Tubi, and other platforms. It’s distributed by Lionsgate.

If made in this traditional way, The Invisible Everywhere would’ve cost me $10 million (because of all the required special effects), which I didn’t have and would’ve been difficult to raise in the current, depressed Hollywood climate.

AI made it possible for me to make the movie by myself, on my desktop computer, for about $25,000.

2. AI is not all bad.

Like all previous, major, disruptive technologies, AI has the potential both for harm and for good. The discovery of nuclear energy led to the creation of the A- and H-bombs, which have the power to annihilate us. But it also led to the entire field of nuclear medicine, which has saved countless lives. Radiation therapy kept my mother alive for years after she was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Yes, AI is putting many people out of work - for which I grieve - but it’s also employing many other people in entirely new positions. As a species we are constantly forced to adapt to changing environments - the AI revolution is just one example of that.

I’m confident we’ll end up being wiser and stronger because of AI. I published an essay about this on my Substack platform recently. You can read it here: https://www.morethanmeetstheiq.com/p/the-very-good-news-about-ai

3. Opposition is often driven by fear and close-mindedness.

We’ve seen this drama before. In 1609 Galileo built the world’s first telescope, which enabled our species to behold things never before seen: Jupiter’s moons, Venus’s phases, and lunar craters. Yet many fearful and ill-informed people of his day refused to look through, or even go near, the telescope.

Likewise, in 1450, Johannes Gutenberg invented the metal movable-type printing press, making it possible to produce books en masse and thereby increasing the world’s literacy rate. Yet many fearful, ill-informed people hated and railed against the invention because it put scribes out of work.

Conclusion

Love it, hate it, fear it, welcome it, AI is here to stay. My commitment as a scientist, Christian, and conscientious human being is to do everything in my power to make sure AI’s positive potentials are realized.

I believe that AI enabling me to make a beautiful, uplifting movie about the awe and majesty of the universe and human life - without a Hollywood-sized budget or crew - is a reason to celebrate, because it represents the empowerment of the individual over the tyranny of the establishment.

I call it the “Power of One.” Unlike any other technology we’ve invented, AI makes it possible for one person to unleash her or his native creativity.

As someone who was born in East Los Angeles, without a silver spoon in his mouth - without any connections to power - I’m not just proud of what I’ve achieved with this groundbreaking movie, I’m hopeful it will bless generations of people earnestly seeking for truth long after I’m dead and gone.

If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a Founding or Paid Subscriber. It will help support my efforts to speak truth with love … to a world sorely in need of both.

Subscribe now

Thank you and God bless you.

Love,

My new movie, The Invisible Everywhere, premieres worldwide April 8 on TheInvisibleEverywhere.com. Go there now to see the trailer.

Here on Substack I’ll be keeping you updated on all the exciting developments. So don’t go away - this is the place to be!

To God alone be the glory.

If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a Founding or Paid Subscriber. It will help support my efforts to speak truth with love to a world sorely in need of both.

Subscribe now

Thank you and God bless you.

Love,

It’s crazy busy here at Rancho Milagro as we prepare for next Wednesday’s world premiere of The Invisible Everywhere! If you haven’t seen the trailer, here it is. Enjoy!

In the meantime, yesterday evening, NASA launched Artemis II, the first time in more than 50 years we’re sending astronauts to rendezvous with the moon.

Tomorrow I’ll be recording a podcast to discuss this historic event with Team Awesome, my amazing posse of young, bright, articulate protégées.

So, be on the look-out for that. Don’t miss it!

This photo was taken two years ago during my visit to NASA HQ in Houston. Those cardboard cutouts are of the astronauts currently on their way to the moon!

If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a Founding or Paid Subscriber. It will help support my efforts to speak truth with love to a world sorely in need of both.

Subscribe now

Thank you and God bless you.

Love,

I have a confession to make to you today: I am overwhelmed.

With the recent launch of my 30-Minute Science Pocket Guides and frenzied preparations for the April 8 worldwide premiere of my movie, The Invisible Everywhere: Believing Is Seeing, I’ve been operating at ultra-maximum capacity. What with daily media interviews, putting the finishing touches on the movie’s elegant distribution platform, and navigating the relentless day-to-day demands of life, my schedule is out of control.

I’m betting you know exactly how this feels.

Nowadays, in the quiet moments before the morning rush begins - when the iPhone and computer screens are still shut off and the house is quiet - I find myself yearning for simplicity.

The problem is that we live in an era of hyperactivity and complexity. Every day, we’re bombarded by a tsunami of emails, texts, bills, notifications, and bad news. The psychological toll of all this is very real - afflicting us body, mind, and spirit.

Browse through the clinical research and popular articles in expert publications such as Psychology Today - for which I was once a columnist - and you’ll see a recurring, urgent theme: our brains are simply not built to process this never-ending avalanche of manmade stimuli. It’s like trying to run an entire household on a AAA battery.

Psychologists call this phenomenon “cognitive overload”- where the sheer volume of choices and information we face daily make it nearly impossible to focus on anything in depth, elevates our bodies’ levels of stress hormones, and drains our capacity and ambition to be creative.

The bottom line is that we’re biologically and spiritually wired to need white space, or as the creator of the universe puts it: “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10). Even Jesus needed time to rest. Yet we so constantly and thoroughly fill up whatever empty spaces there are in our calendars there’s no room left for us simply to catch our breath.

This modern predicament led me to pick up a book I’ve been diving into recently: Freedom of Simplicity by Richard Foster.

Foster proposes something profoundly countercultural. He suggests that achieving true simplicity doesn’t result from some clever life hack, scheduling technique, or method for decluttering our garage. Instead, Foster says, achieving simplicity happens from the inside out.

He argues that when we are inwardly well oriented - when our inner compass, so to speak, points to true north - the outward turbulence of life is less likely to buffet us. Instead, we’re more likely to strip our lives of its non-essential distractions and frustrations so that its essentials - above all, our relationship with God - can thrive.

As someone who has spent a lifetime studying the universe, I’m able to see a powerful lesson in simplicity that others might not. Here’s what I mean.

Outwardly, the universe is filled with chaotic processes - black holes devouring entire stars, materials undergoing tortuous phase transitions, mountains being worn down by weather, radioactive atoms being split apart by fission. But at the heart of all this Sturm and Drang are simple truths - like Albert Einstein’s concise equation, E = mc^2.

So, as I yearn for simplicity, the question I’m forced to ask is this: What simple, essential truths are at the heart of my life?

On one level, the answer is simple: the truths immortalized in the Bible. But the challenge I face is applying them daily in the midst of radio and TV interviews, my cell phone constantly ringing or sending me texts, constant deadlines - like the weekly deadlines for my Substack essays - and the personal challenges, domestic chores and household repairs that never cease demanding my attention.

I wish I could say that the simple, essential truths I hold sacred are running the show. But, alas, I can’t. Even at my age, I’m still a work in progress.

How about you, my beloved fellow traveler? How good are you at carving out space to breathe? To be still? To achieve a sense of tranquil simplicity?

As we barrel toward the movie’s April 8th worldwide premiere, the journey we’re on is about to get really interesting. But right now the one thing I yearn for most of all is the simplicity of a quiet moment.

My new movie, The Invisible Everywhere, premieres worldwide April 8 on TheInvisibleEverywhere.com. Go there now to see the trailer.

Here on Substack I’ll be keeping you updated on all the exciting developments. So don’t go away - this is the place to be!

To God alone be the glory.

Click here to order my brand new 30-Minute Science Pocket Guides.

If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a Founding or Paid Subscriber. It will help support my efforts to speak truth with love to a world sorely in need of both.

Subscribe now

Thank you and God bless you.

Love,

My newest movie, The Invisible Everywhere, premieres worldwide April 8 on TheInvisibleEverywhere.com. Go there now to see the trailer and press release.

Here on Substack I’ll be keeping you updated on all the exciting developments. So don’t go away - this is the place to be!

To God alone be the glory.

Does God Speak?

The Bible makes many claims that appear to conflict irreconcilably with science. For example, this one: God can speak to us, and we to him.

Is there any reasonable way we can square that fantastical assertion with science? Yes - and quite easily, actually.

Conventional Communications

When I was a boy madly in love with science, I learned there are just two forms of communication: acoustic (sound) and electromagnetic (light).

Sound consists of forward-and-backward vibrations - what we scientists call “longitudinal waves”- that travel at speeds that depend on the medium through which they’re moving. Sound moves about four times faster in water than in air, for example.

Light is a bit more complicated. Simply described, however, it consists of up-and-down vibrations - what we call “transverse waves” - that travel at speeds that, once again, depend on the medium though which they’re moving. Light moves fastest through a vacuum.

Through most media, light travels much faster than sound - although there are exotic materials called “Bose-Einstein condensates” where that’s not true. In any case, scientists once believed that nothing in the material universe - not even information - can travel faster than light does through a vacuum.

Quantum Entanglement

Starting in the 1970s, however, that shibboleth was thoroughly upended by the shocking results of certain quantum experiments. The development was so revolutionary it earned three scientists - John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger - the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Read more

Today, I am thrilled to announce that the doors are wide open for my brand-new 30-Minute Science Pocket Guides.

As you know, we’re all on this amazing journey called “life” together—and it is a journey filled with mystery. Filled with awe and wonder.

But let’s be honest: today’s rapidly changing science-and-technology world can be complex, confusing, and scary.

That’s exactly why I created these guides. I wanted to give readers absolute clarity on the most pressing issues of our time - from the perspective of a scientist and Christian - in under 30 minutes.

Today, I’m releasing pocket guides for three very important topics:

• TRUTH: How do we know what is real in a world of spin?

• ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Understanding the machine without the fear.

• SCIENTIFIC DATING METHODS: A clear look at the age of the Earth and the cosmos.

For the best value, and to fully equip yourself for the road ahead, I highly recommend grabbing the 3-Book Bundle so you have all three guides right at your fingertips.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THEM.

Thank you for being on this journey with me. Grab your guides, dive in, and let me know what you think!

Love,

If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a Founding or Paid Subscriber. It will help support my efforts to speak truth with love to a world sorely in need of both.

Subscribe now

My newest movie, The Invisible Everywhere, premieres worldwide April 8 on TheInvisibleEverywhere.com. Go there now to see the trailer and press release.

Here on Substack I’ll be keeping you updated on all the exciting developments. So don’t go away - this is the place to be!

To God alone be the glory.

Chaos

As the universe expands, it’s steadily tearing everything apart - galaxies, solar systems, eventually even atoms. Because of that, the universe is becoming increasingly disorganized and chaotic.

In science-speak we say it this way: The entropy of the universe - the amount of disorder or chaos in the universe - is steadily increasing. That, in a nutshell, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Stated as an equation, where the letter S stands for entropy, the Second Law looks like this:

Angel of Death

Life is astonishing because it defies entropy. It defies chaos. It defies disorder.

How does it do that? How does life manage to stay organized in the face of a universe relentlessly trying to tear it apart? Work.

For you and me to stay alive, it takes every cell of our bodies working hard 24/7 to stave off the universe’s chaos. Work overcomes entropy and creates order. Order is the opposite of entropy. Order is “negative entropy.” Order is necessary for life to exist and persevere.

That’s one of many reasons why it’s difficult - if not impossible - to believe that life on Earth is an accident. Chaos by itself doesn’t produce life. As the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates, chaos merely perpetuates and even increases chaos.

In short, therefore, what the Second Law of Thermodynamics teaches us is this: Chaos is the enemy of life. It’s the Angel of Death.

Angel of New Life

When I was a grad student at Cornell I had the privilege of getting to know and learn from physicist Ken Wilson. While I was there he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his profound insights into the behavior of complex physical systems - e.g., living beings - undergoing radical transformations. In physics we call such transformations phase transitions.

Read more

The Invisible Everywhere website is now LIVE! Check it out here: The Invisible Everywhere

This morning press releases went out to thousands of media outlets worldwide. For that huge effort, I wish to express my deepest respect and gratitude to the three extremely talented, experienced, and generous folks who are donating their services to this audacious initiative: Scott Hogenson (President, Hogenson Communications, Dallas, TX), Trish Stevens (President, Ascot Media Group, Houston TX), and Wendy Cornett (Head Writer, Ascot Media Group). Thank you. Thank you! Thank you!!!

Here are three different press releases, specifically written for different media sectors. Feel free to post them, send them to friends and family, and use them in any reasonable way you wish:

• Radio Press Release

• Non-AI Press Release

• AI-Centric Press Release

Finally for now, I remind you once again that this is not just another launch of just another movie – it’s a significant milestone in the history of the cinematic arts.

My prayer is that this AI-generated motion picture will glorify the Lord, transform lives, and cause people of every persuasion – believers, seekers, doubters, and haters - to stop and take stock of their worldviews.

Just as, in its own revolutionary way, Gutenberg’s Bible once did.

If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a Founding or Paid Subscriber. It will help support my efforts to speak truth with love … to a world sorely in need of both.

Subscribe now

Thank you and God bless you.

Love,

As part of the AI revolution, scientists are creating robots that emote like us humans. Their bet - a very sensible, profitable one - is that we’ll be more likely to purchase such robots as companions and caregivers than ones that are emotionless and mechanical.

This monumental AI undertaking naturally raises the question of how many different emotions the average human is capable of expressing. According to most psychologists, the long answer is twenty-seven, the short answer is seven.

Emotions

We experience emotions automatically - we don’t willingly choose to have them - and express them primarily through facial expressions and body language. Also, emotions disrupt our physiology - heart rate, blood pressure, hormone levels, etc. - but usually for no longer than an hour. Prolonged emotions become moods.

We typically experience emotions in reaction to recalled memories or outside stimuli - for example, smelling rotting meat or finding ourselves in the direct path of a charging rhino.

And finally, according to modern evolutionary biology, emotions evolved to help individuals, families, and close-knit societies survive and procreate. This view is, of course, entirely in line with evolutionary biology’s central, utilitarian dogma, namely: Everything about living organisms, not just humans, evolved in order to help them live, fight, and multiply another day.

The late American psychologist Paul Ekman is credited with the modern version of what’s called the Basic Emotions Theory. According to this theory, humans of every sex, culture, creed, and upbringing are capable of expressing seven core emotions.

Very briefly, here they are, together with the putative reasons they evolved:

1. Anger

This emotion supposedly evolved to help individuals scare away potential threats to themselves, their resources, their families, and their societies.

2. Contempt

This emotion supposedly evolved to help families and societies maintain law and order. Showing contempt helps discipline rebels, loafers, malcontents, incompetents, criminals, and other perceived threats to their lives, resources, cohesion, hierarchies, and standards of behavior.

3. Disgust

This emotion supposedly evolved to protect individuals from ingesting dangerous foods and drinks. Experiencing disgust also helps keep us away from diseased individuals and environments that might do us harm.

4. Enjoyment

This emotion supposedly evolved as a reward for jobs well done, for good behavior, and for any and all other efforts that enhance an individual’s ability to survive and procreate. Feeling joyful, in other words, is a strong form of positive reinforcement that encourages us to succeed in life.

5. Fear

This emotion supposedly evolved to discourage individuals from behaving recklessly and, thus, to maximize their chances of surviving in the face of danger. When we’re faced with a threat, fear instantly heightens our five senses, prepares our muscles for action, and energizes our body chemistry - for example, by triggering an adrenalin rush.

6. Sadness

This emotion supposedly evolved to console individuals and communities who are suffering. When we express sadness it’s like flashing a Bat Signal: it mobilizes those around us to come to our aid and comfort, thereby boosting our chances of making it safely through the crisis.

7. Surprise

This emotion - like fear - supposedly evolved to help us respond quickly and with heightened abilities to sudden, unexpected events. When we’re surprised, our eyes widen and our attention is instantly laser-focused on the cause of the surprise - an invaluable reaction to events that might very well spell the difference between life and death.

More Emotions

Ekman’s Basic Emotions Theory is by no means science’s last word on the subject. Fact is, there are countless competing theories over which biologists and psychologists squabble endlessly. These educated guesses go by names such as Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions and Russell’s Circumplex Model of Affect.

One theory that has gotten a great deal of attention belongs to a pair of psychologists at the University of California, Berkeley: Alan S. Cowen and Dacher Keltner. According to them there are 27 identifiable human emotions:

• Admiration

• Adoration

• Aesthetic appreciation

• Amusement

• Anxiety

• Awe

• Awkwardness

• Boredom

• Calmness

• Confusion

• Craving

• Disgust

• Empathetic pain

• Entrancement

• Envy

• Excitement

• Fear

• Horror

• Interest

• Joy

• Nostalgia

• Romance

• Sadness

• Satisfaction

• Sexual desire

• Sympathy

• Triumph

Awe

The one emotion on the list I find most intriguing and that science has the hardest time explaining is awe. In the words of a Psychology Today article dedicated to this singular emotion: “Awe is still in some ways mysterious, and the study of it is still relatively new.”

Awe is the emotion that overcomes us when we have an experience that’s bigger than life. That transcends the ordinary. That defies description. That beggars the imagination.

An awesome experience takes our breath away and fills us with a profound sense of wonder. I experienced awe when:

Read more

I’m thrilled for you to be the very first ones to see the two movie trailers for “The Invisible Everywhere,” my upcoming movie, based on my bestselling book Believing Is Seeing.

CLICK HERE to watch Trailer #1. (Password: Trailer 1)

CLICK HERE to watch Trailer #2. (Password: Trailer 2)

Furthermore, please take a moment to participate in this simple poll:

If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a Founding or Paid Subscriber. It will help support my efforts to speak truth with love … to a world sorely in need of both.

Subscribe now

Thank you and God bless you.

Love,

If yo…

Read more

According to today’s theory of evolution - which I often call today’s theology of evolution, owing to its resemblance to an ideologically driven religion - we’re purely physical creatures no different than any other animal. This appraisal of our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, is of course entirely consistent with science’s overall, naturalistic interpretation of reality.

According to this secular worldview, there are just two principal goals in life: (A) survive and (B) procreate. That’s it. Fight for your life like a cornered animal, and have as many babies as you can.

Evolutionary biologist and well-known Atheist Richard Dawkins attempts to explain this thesis in his well-written, bestselling book The Selfish Gene. In it he claims that individual life forms - you and I - are merely expendable vehicles by which selfish genes perpetuate themselves.

To be sure, we are a competitive species; and a highly sexed one to boot. But does modern evolutionary biology’s meager portrayal of life sound entirely credible to you? Is your life meaningful only insofar as your genes successfully survive to live and fight another day?

My answer is, no. I regard that view of human life as base and simpleminded. It doesn’t even come close to accounting for the rich, complex, adventurous, deeply mysterious and paradoxical history of our kind.

The Space Age

I’m a child of the original space race. As I write these words I can see myself sitting on the floor of our den, together with all my neighborhood friends, watching the smudgy, black-and-white TV images of Neil Armstrong stepping off the ladder of the Lunar Excursion Module, intoning, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for Mankind.”

I can also see myself as a nerdy youngster typing up his very first weekly newspaper column, which appeared in scores of PennySavers throughout Southern California. I titled the article, "To Mars or Bust.”

In it, I wrote this:

“Is there life on Mars? That certainly has been a perennial shoo-in for the $64,000 question - and to this day continues to beg for a reliable answer.”

Back then, critics of the U. S. space program wondered angrily how anyone could possibly justify spending billions of dollars to send astronauts to other worlds when people on Earth were starving to death. In 1964 Israeli-American sociologist Amitai Etzioni said this in his book The Moon-Doggle:

“Above all, the space race is used as an escape, by focusing on the moon we delay facing ourselves, as Americans and as citizens of the earth.”

Today, when we’re in the midst of an exciting, new iteration of manned space exploration - this time funded primarily by wealthy entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson - the critics are at it again, with the very same complaint. In a recent editorial in The Guardian, U. S. Senator Bernie Sanders wrote this:

“At a time when over half of the people in this country live paycheck to paycheck, when more than 70 million are uninsured or underinsured and when some 600,000 Americans are homeless, should we really be providing a multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout for Bezos to fuel his space hobby? I don’t think so.”

There’s a part of me that gets Senator Sanders’ dissent, gets his compassion for those in great need. How could I feel otherwise and still call myself a Christian?

But there’s another, larger part of me that recognizes the gross inaccuracy of Senator Sander’s position. It relies on the same fallacious reasoning peddled by all the critics of space exploration, namely: Exploring space is a waste of time and money; if only we gave it up, we’d be able to solve the world’s many social problems.

In fact, exploring space has not been a waste of time and money, nor has it worked against social advancement - far from it. The technologies that scientists have created to explore the heavens have, in fact, made life on Earth significantly safer, healthier, and more tolerable.

From better cancer-screening devices and 3D-printed, affordable housing units to heartbeat detectors used to locate missing persons in search-and-rescue operations and anti-gravity treadmills used by patients going through physical therapy - the fruits of our decades of space exploration have significantly improved the lives of nearly everyone on planet Earth.

That said, however, these payoffs aren’t the main reason we explore space.

The Call of the Unknown

Discovering the real reason we explore space begins by recognizing one glaring difference between us and all other animals.

Read more

I love writing these posts. But they require a great deal of time because God demands and deserves my very best effort.

My prayer for 2026 is that I’ll be able to stop doing other, less fulfilling things and instead support this burgeoning Substack ministry fulltime. That’ll be possible only with the support of Paid Subscribers. But I’m surrendering the entire matter to God.

On another front, I’m very close to putting the finishing touches on my move, The Invisible Everywhere: Believing Is Seeing. If things continue going as planned we will release the movie in early May. Stay tuned for further announcements!

From the bottom of my heart, thank you to my Paid Subscribers from 48 states and 35 nations for supporting my ministry, which is committed to speaking truth with love … to a world sorely in need of both.

To God alone be the glory!

Amen.

The Old Days

Back - way back! - when I was in grade school it was fashionable to be part of the crowd. The last thing most kids wanted to do was stand out like sore thumbs for fear of attracting negative attention to themselves.

In just my lifetime, however, the pendulum has swung completely in the opposite direction, and then some. Today, standing out from the crowd - aggressively flaunting one’s individuality - is not just fashionable, it’s metastasized into a cultural pathology, especially among young people.

It doesn’t take a PhD in sociology to recognize that this unhealthy state of affairs is driven partly, and enabled largely, by science and technology. Wildly popular social media platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat tempt people into saying and doing outrageous things in order to stand out from the crowd, in order to accrete likes, followers, and monetization.

Today, unlike the past, it literally pays to be narcissistic.

The Rise of Personalization

When I was a boy, most of what everyone wore and possessed was purchased off the shelf. For the most part the only choices we had were size and color, which meant that kids at school tended to wear similar clothes and shoes, use similar school supplies, watch similar TV shows, and listen to similar radio stations.

Personalized merchandize was limited to such items as customized T-shirts sold at certain beach resorts, keychains pre-printed with scores of common names, and Mickey Mouse hats sold at Disneyland on which your name could be embroidered.

It wasn’t until the late 1990s and early 2000s - with the invention of the World Wide Web and online retailers such as CustomCat, Vistaprint, Redbubble, Zazzle, and Etsy - that the availability and affordability of personalized merchandize skyrocketed.

Suddenly, at a very reasonable price (and in many cases, for free), you could: (A) order everything from customized clothing and sneakers to customized pencils and temporary tattoos, (B) listen to customized playlists, (C) publish your very own, customized website, (D) become a member of customized hobby and special-interest groups, (E) aggregate your very own, customized news sources, and so forth.

Today, honestly, there’s very little that can’t be customized.

What Is Truth?

Even truth is now entirely personalizable. It’s the most tragic - and dangerous - casualty of today’s customized culture.

The slaughter has come at the hands of an ideological movement that places supreme importance on our emotions. According to its highly personalized worldview, a person’s feelings aren’t just an essential feature of their reality, they are the person’s reality, period.

This zealotry is well illustrated by an oft-quoted sentiment from Daniell Koepke, the late, Los Angeles-based psychologist who last year tragically committed suicide. According to her: “Your feelings may not always be logical, but they are always valid. Because if you feel something, then you feel it and it's real to you.”

In just my lifetime this extremely subjective view of reality has successfully popularized the concepts of my truth and your truth. Today in some quarters, in fact, defending the concept of objective truth - the truth - is likened to and condemned as hate speech.

I frequently hear people defending their subjective, feelings-centered worldview by invoking Einstein’s theory of special relativity. According to the theory, certain aspects of reality appear differently to different observers - i.e., observers traveling at different speeds. A meter stick, for example, appears shorter to an observer in motion than it does to an observer at rest with respect to the meter stick.

I also hear people invoking quantum theory to defend their subjective, emotion-centered worldview. According to the theory, different observers may legitimately disagree about what they see. For example, about whether Schrödinger’s cat is dead or alive.

Given all that, it’s easy to see why so many people come to the conclusion that truth is entirely subjective. That your truth isn’t necessarily my truth. That even modern science proves truth is relative.

But that conclusion is seriously mistaken for one, all-important reason.

Read more

I love writing these posts. But they require a great deal of time because God demands and deserves my very best effort.

My prayer for 2026 is that I’ll be able to stop doing other, less fulfilling things and instead support this burgeoning Substack ministry fulltime. That’ll be possible only with the support of Paid Subscribers. But I’m surrendering the entire matter to God.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you to my Paid Subscribers from 48 states and 35 nations for supporting my ministry, which is dedicated to speaking truth with love … to a world sorely in need of both.

To God alone be the glory!

Amen.

How It Began

In the 1980s - when I began teaching at Harvard and, unexpectedly, was hired simultaneously by CBS News and WCVB-TV (the Boston ABC affiliate) to be their on-air science correspondent - expert systems were a hot topic. These were elaborate, expensive computer programs that attempted to replicate human expertise in various specific fields such as medicine, business, and engineering.

For the most part these expert systems turned human expertise into a string of “if-then” scenarios. For example …

• If a patient shows up with a fever and blisters on the palms of their hands, then …

• If a newly designed airplane tends to shudder at a certain speed, then …

• If an employee is always showing up late to work, then …

With time, these expert systems morphed into what we now call artificial intelligence (AI). At its core, AI is an audacious attempt to capture real human intelligence in a bottle.

Can it be done?

Can human intelligence be fully translated into computer code, reducing it to a series of zeroes and ones? That, my fellow traveler, is the subject of today’s discussion.

What Is Intelligence?

AI’s ascendency has forced us to ask the seemingly simple yet profound question: What is real human intelligence? What exactly is AI trying to imitate?

One answer, arguably the easiest, is that AI is trying to mimic human IQ. After all, IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is what virtually everyone identifies as human intelligence.

But that easy, obvious answer is fraught with complexities. Why? Because AI can be taught to ace IQ tests without having any real intelligence, without having any understanding whatsoever of the test questions or the correct answers to them.

This means we must invent a reliable, new way of testing AI’s actual intelligence, a task that’s proving to be extremely difficult. Resolving the difficulty begins with acknowledging the enormous difference between (A) specialized intelligence and (B) general intelligence.

Today’s AI - the descendants of those old, expert systems I spoke about - has a great deal of specialized intelligence. Scientists call it Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI).

AI’s ANI is comparable to that of a well-trained organ grinder’s monkey. The monkey collects coins and tips his hat, which is very impressive; but he does all of it without any real understanding of any of it.

Today’s AI supercomputers, chatbots, and robots are highly trained to say, draw, do, and compose all kinds of very impressive things. For example, today’s AI can ace a tough bar exam, a rigorous medical exam, or a head-scratching SAT test; but it does all of it without any real understanding of any of it.

General intelligence is a very different beast. It comprises many things, among them the all-around, genuine ability to: (A) reason autonomously, (B) problem solve autonomously, and (C) create autonomously.

General intelligence is what every healthy human being is born with. Indeed, the sum total of humanity’s general intelligence - dating back millennia and now stored in libraries, museums, and professional and trade organizations worldwide - is what trains today’s high-ANI AI to do impressive things.

But here’s the reality of today’s AI: It lacks any significant level of general intelligence. Restated in the language of science: Today’s high-ANI AI has a very low Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI.

Putting Today’s AI to the Test

Read more

I love writing these posts. But they require a great deal of time and toil, because God demands and deserves my very best effort.

My prayer for 2026 is that I’ll be able to stop doing other, less fulfilling things and instead support this burgeoning Substack ministry fulltime. That’ll be possible only with the support of Paid Subscribers. But I’m surrendering the entire matter to God.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you to my Paid Subscribers from 48 states and 35 nations for supporting my ministry, which is committed to speaking truth with love … to a world sorely in need of both.

To God alone be the glory!

Amen.

Life In the Universe

Any serious discussion about ETs must begin with this astonishing, 20th-century scientific discovery: The universe is genetically predisposed for life.

That’s right. Like you and me, the cosmos has something like a genome comprised of many “genes,” or what we scientists call natural constants. We’re not sure exactly how many there are, but the number is probably somewhere between 20 and 30.

Each cosmic gene determines a fundamental trait of the physical universe, such as: (A) the strength of gravity, (B) the mass of the electron, (C) the number of the universe’s spatial dimensions, (D) the speed of light, (E) the expansion rate of the universe, and (F) the destructive power of the nuclear force, just to name a few.

During the late 20th century, scientists used powerful telescopes and other, clever instruments to decode many of these all-important genes, and guess what? Every single one of them, without exception, has precisely the value needed for life to exist. Not just life on Earth, but life throughout the universe.

If even one of the cosmic genes were off by just a tiny, tiny bit the universe as we know it wouldn’t exist. Not only would it look completely different - no stars, no planets, no atoms - it would be a lifeless, cosmic-sized ghost town. In particular there would be no us - no human beings - wondering if we were alone.

At the close of the 20th century, therefore - knowing that the universe is tailormade for life - the ETOI (ET Optimism Index) was sky-high. That is, we had every right to believe we were not alone in the cosmos.

Fermi’s Paradox

In truth, the ETOI was already quite high as early as the 1930s, well before we knew about the universe’s remarkable genome. That’s because most people reasoned thusly: The universe is filled with so many galaxies, so many stars, so many planets, there’s got to be life out there somewhere. There’s got to be! It’s only a matter of time and effort before we find it.

By the 1950s, however, some people began expressing skepticism. One of them was physicist and Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi, famous for having built the world’s first nuclear reactor.

At lunch with friends one day, Fermi cited a calculation he’d done showing that the Milky Way galaxy alone - our home galaxy - should be teeming with ETs. So, then, he asked: Why haven’t they long-since made overt, unambiguous contact with us? In other words, “Where is Everyone??”

The Search Begins

As a graduate student at Cornell I had the great fortune of being taught by Professors Frank Drake and Carl Sagan, the legendary founders of SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). In 1960 Drake became the first scientist to run an experiment specifically aimed at looking for ETs. He named his search “Project Ozma,” after the fictional queen of Oz.

For four months - from April to July - Drake aimed a giant radio telescope (effectively, a gigantic ear) at two stars 64 trillion miles away: Tau Ceti and Epsilon Eridani. During that time, there was an exciting false alarm - probably caused by Earth-bound radar -but otherwise, sad to say, Drake heard nothing but static.

Since then, scientists and amateurs worldwide have conducted countless other rigorous SETI experiments, many of which I’ve covered for major news outlets. But, alas, all the searches have detected the same thing: crickets.

In a 2015 Op Ed for Fox News, I described a landmark SETI experiment run by Pennsylvania State University astronomers. Using the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer - an eagle-eyed NASA infrared space telescope - they scrutinized 100,000 galaxies for signs of life. What did they find? Nothing. Nada. Nichts.

More recently, vast, well-funded searches using the powerful Hubble, James Webb, and Euclid space telescopes have likewise found nothing - not a single, solitary ET.

Along the way, yes, SETI experiments have come across some tantalizing, headline-making bread crumbs. For example: (A) exoplanets with potentially habitable atmospheres; (B) organic molecules in deep space; (C) possible technosignatures (e.g., electromagnetic signals); and (D) potential biosignatures (e.g., metabolic chemicals). But they haven’t found one ET, nor even a primitive living microorganism, nor anything coming even close to resembling actual life.

Nevertheless, the bread crumbs - plus constant hype from parties with a vested interest in SETI - have been more than enough to keep alive the public’s enthusiastic belief in the existence of ETs. Today’s rage reminds me of the 1950s - the dawn of the modern Space Age - when it seems everyone was looking up at the night sky hoping to spot - or claiming to spot - a flying saucer.

It was a time when Hollywood produced some of cinema’s most memorable (and, in many cases, cheesiest) outer-space movies. To this day, they include some of my all-time favorites: Invaders From Mars (1953), The Thing From Another World (1951), Destination Moon (1950), and The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951).

Between the 1950s and now, there have been lots of UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena) sightings, UAP government hearings, independent UAP investigations, UAP books, movies, speeches, and merchandise. And, yet, here we are with still no slam-dunk, conclusive evidence that life exists anywhere other than the earth.

Yes, I know it’s a hard pill for many people (including me) to swallow. But it’s a fact: We still have not captured any ET; not captured any ET spacecraft; not received any ET radio transmission; not secured any authenticated ET artifact - not so much as a hanky - that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that we have been visited, or are being visited, by physical creatures from another world.

Believe me, I wish it weren’t so. When I was a boy madly in love with science, I wished oh-so-hard that I could lay eyes on an ET. But now, as a sober-minded scientist - knowing what science has failed to discover, despite decades of trying - I can’t and won’t give into wishful thinking.

Spiritual Intelligence

If I were still an atheist, this would be the end of our discussion. There’d be little more that I could add to alter the (at least, for-now) compelling conclusion that we are, indeed, alone in the universe.

But I’m no longer an atheist, so our discussion is far from over. In fact, it’s just beginning to get interesting.

Many years ago, when I was teaching physics at Harvard - and, I might add, well along on my Hermann Hesse-like spiritual journey, which I describe in Believing Is Seeing -I coined the term “Spiritual Intelligence” (SQ) to describe a hypercognitive ability unique to humans. Among other things, SQ enables us to perceive, albeit imperfectly, the existence of realities that are both non-physical and what I call translogical.

In light of that concept - and the compelling scientific and Biblical evidence that supports it - it’s now reasonable for us to ask a simple but profound question: “Is it possible some of the UAP sightings reported over the centuries are of spiritual beings?”

Before you laugh off the question, consider two extraordinary phenomena modern science has discovered.

Read more

I love writing these posts. But they require a great deal of time and toil because God demands and deserves my best effort.

My prayer for 2026 is that I’ll be able to stop doing other, less fulfilling things and instead devote myself fulltime to this Substack ministry. That’ll be possible only with the support of Paid Subscribers. But I’m surrendering the entire matter to God.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you to my Paid Subscribers from 48 states and 35 nations for supporting my ministry, which is committed to speaking truth with love … to a world sorely in need of both.

To God alone be the glory!

Amen.

The Atheist Conceit

A few weeks ago I posted this message on Facebook (as well as my other social media pages):

As you can see, it inspired a sizeable reaction. Atheists weren’t happy to hear me say that atheism is a religion, which didn’t surprise me. As a former atheist I know that, for any atheist, being called religious is the worst possible thing in the world.

Why is that?

In my many decades of close interactions with atheists I’ve discovered they generally see themselves in a very superior way, as rising above the low-brow superstitions they claim all religions to be. To the typical atheist - in a minute I’ll address some important differences among atheists - believing in, say, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is as utterly foolish as believing in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

During my graduate studies at Cornell, when I was an atheist, I, too, was filled with that signature conceit. It fit hand-and-glove with my intellectual elitism and scientific monkishness. More about that in a bit.

Defining Religion

As a scientist, I understand the importance of defining one’s terms before diving into any dissertation. So in preparing to write this Op Ed I asked several prominent AI chatbots to define religion. Here are their responses:

I venture to say it’s impossible to find any definition of religion on which everyone will agree. But based on an objective, thoughtful reading of the foregoing candidates - all of which I consider quite reasonable - it’s safe to say there are at least three defining traits that all religions have in common, including, as you’ll see, atheism.

Namely, a religion …

Read more

I love writing these posts. But they require a great deal of time and toil because God demands and deserves my best effort.

My prayer for 2026 is that I’ll be able to stop doing other, less fulfilling things and instead support this burgeoning Substack ministry fulltime. That’ll be possible only with the support of Paid Subscribers. But I’m surrendering the entire matter to God.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you to my Paid Subscribers from 48 states and 35 nations for supporting my ministry, which is committed to speaking truth with love … to a world sorely in need of both.

To God alone be the glory!

Happy New Year!!!

Amen.

Who Are You, Really?

If a person asks, “Who are you?” what’s your most likely reply?

Would you give them your name? (“I’m Dr. Michael Guillén.”) If so, you’re telling them next to nothing about yourself.

Would you give them your occupation? (“I’m a scientist, reporter, writer, speaker, and movie producer.”) If so, again, you’re not revealing anything meaningful about yourself.

Would you give them your sex, eye & hair color, weight, and height? (“I am a male with brown eyes & brown hair, who weighs about 170 pounds and is 6 feet 2 inches tall.”) If so, you’re giving the person merely a superficial description of yourself and nothing more.

Who are you, really?

What makes you tick?

What determines how you see, think about, and behave toward yourself, others, and the whole of reality?

In short, what’s your worldview?

Answer that one question and you fully define yourself because your worldview is the colored filter through which you perceive everything. It’s who you are, through and through.

To get started answering the all-important question, “Who are you, really?” I invite you to picture your worldview as a bubble. That’s right, a bubble.

Your worldview is your bubble of reality, which is completely defined by just three parameters: (A) foundation, (B) size, and (C) center.

Foundation

Your worldview rests on a foundation of convictions that mostly can’t be proved, but that you believe wholeheartedly. To you, they’re axiomatic.

Read more