And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:3-4)

We can see here that the Supreme Being is making an intention, followed by an execution: "Let there be light" is directly followed by and there was light.

Who is God speaking to here?

The use of the word "said" prior to His statement is allegorical. The word "said" is being translated from the Hebrew word אמר ('amar), which means, according to the lexicon, "to say, to answer, to say in one's heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend."

Since there is no audience mentioned other than the reader, we can know that this word  אמר ('amar) is speaking more of intention and command rather than making an announcement. In other words, God is not making a big speech to anyone here.

Rather, God is willing, and then acting. He communicates His intent via His design of the physical universe.

This is the Supreme Being, from the spiritual dimension - a dimension where time does not exist. The Supreme Being created time in order to set in motion the physical universe. Notice that God simply had to command light. This indicates that light - which is energy - originates from God. But physical light - energy of the material plane - is infused with time.

The source of this energy emanates from God. This is confirmed by numerous scriptural passages. Therefore, when God created the physical universe, He endowed it with His light.

'God saw that the light was good' indicates His approval. He is willing the creation of the physical universe - then He is approving it. This means He designed the creation.

What does it mean by God separating the darkness from the light? This can only mean that He put in place the aspect of periodicity, which means the element of time. Separating light from the darkness requires that one segment or period has light while another segment or period has darkness. This means to alternate light with darkness, in effect putting in place the effect of time and rotation.

If we look around us, everything is rotating. We see spiraling galaxies, rotating solar systems and planets that revolve. We also find revolution among atoms and molecules, as electrons revolve around nuclei. These are all aspects of periodicity, and we measure time by these rotations. We also see that our very lives are modeled around periodicity and time. We have day and night, winter and summer, hot and cold and so on. The universe is in balance, based on periodicity - and time.

This periodicity is also expressed by the yin and yang of ancient Chinese thought. The concept is that the universe is completely balanced between the yin and the yang. This balance, of course, requires periodicity and the aspect of time.

Because God emanates light, He could endow the physical universe with light. And because He is complete, He contains both the yin and the yang. This is because God is the Cause of existence.

The laws of the physical universe indicate that everything has a cause and a source. As we investigate the universe we find that every event has a cause. This is the basis of science: To determine the cause of things. And the only reason there are scientists is because the study of finding a cause for so many things has become worthwhile.

Consider, on the other hand, a chaotic universe where things simply happened without cause. Would such a universe prompt us to employ scientists to find the causes of events? Certainly not. We would consistently find that they were wrong about each of their studies, and conclude that it is a waste of time to employ them to study anything. A chaotic world without cause and effect would simply be a waste of time to study.

A chaotic world where things simply happen without cause would also lead to an existence without any consistency.

Yet today, many supposed scientists are proposing that humans and life itself had no original cause. They propose life and the universe were accidental.

If these are accidental, there is no purpose for existence. We are simply the result of a freak accident of nature. Yet this proposal contradicts the very nature of scientific discovery: Finding the cause.

What these supposed scientists are simply admitting is that they do not know what caused the creation of the universe.

If we look around us, we see organization. We see cause and effect. Again, this is why we value science. Because science can observe an event for awhile, and at some point see there was a previous event that is connected in a causal manner. Connecting causal events in this way allows us to understand the causes of things. This allows us to learn.

In other words, true science helps us understand consistency among causes and effects. Science allows us to see that a particular event is consistently caused by something else. Furthermore, if an event is somehow altered, science can help find that other effect that interceded and altered the event. These understandings have provided us with a fundamental axiom of the scientific method: Every effect has an antecedent cause.

Therefore, using science's own fundamental axiom, we have proved that the physical world cannot be accidental. Since every effect is preceded by a cause, this means there is causation. Since there is causation on a consistent basis, the universe is cannot be accidental. It cannot be chaotic.

Actually, the only arena that modern scientists propose pure chaos theory is when they speculate about creation. They propose the world was an accident simply because they do not want to accept a possible cause. They refuse to accept that - even though every other event we observe in the physical universe consistently has a cause - the creation somehow is an exception. This is simply an illogical assumption. It is also unscientific.

The problem with modern cosmology (the "science" of creation) today is that this community - like any other community dictated by peer-pressure - has a problem with accepting information from a higher source. Cosmologists want to believe that since they haven't observed a Living Cause of the universe with the senses then He must not exist. This dependency upon the senses is called empiricism. This is the third axiom of the scientific method: It states that every conclusion must be based upon observation.

As we look back even over the past few hundred years of science we can see this axiom is deeply flawed. For example, only a few hundred years ago, scientists could not observe microorganisms. They had no idea - until Anton van Leeuwenhoek looked through a microscope and saw what he called "animalcules." These were, of course, microorganisms. Prior to this, there were a few theories of microorganisms, but most of these were heavily criticized by scientists because they hadn't seen them with their own eyes.

This type of error has continued in cosmology today. As we are able to peer at smaller elements of nature - or the universe at greater distances - we continue to make the same mistakes due to the innate faults of our senses and their extensions: Our senses simply do not have the ability to observe everything. We continue to guess about the things we cannot observe right now, and then once we develop the ability to observe them, we discover our error.

Therefore, since our senses and their extensions are flawed, then a scientific axiom that says something cannot be true unless it is observed by our senses or their extensions - is also flawed.

This reality is in fact already admitted among quantum physics and cosmology - which have utilized extensional thinking - speculation - to arrive at principles related to the nature of the universe and its creation. Through these theories, they are already admitting the flawed nature of the third axiom that something must be observed with the senses in order to be true.

Another example of this flawed axiom is the calculation of what is now referred to as "dark matter." Current physics calculations suggest that up to 96 percent of the universe is made of dark matter. The punchline: Scientists don't know what this "dark matter" is made of because it is unobservable.

So if cosmologists don't know what 96 percent of the universe is made of because they cannot perceive it, how could they suggest a speculative hypothesis that there was no Living Creator?

We must accept that our senses and their extensions - be they microscopes, telescopes or space probes - are limited. The senses and their extensions cannot see the entire picture. Thus it is unscientific to completely rely on them. At some point, we must accept a higher Source of information.

We can arrive at such a case logically: Since everything we observe has an antecedent cause, then it is logical that the universe - filled with unseen "dark" matter, observable matter, light, energy, and life - must also have a Cause.

Furthermore, it would be logical to assume that such a Cause must have the potential for what is existing. In other words, that Cause must contain light and energy: And because life exists, that Cause must contain life.

What does this indicate? A Living Cause. If something contains life, it means that it is alive. This logically can only mean that the Cause of the physical universe must be alive. We are describing, of course, the Supreme Being: God.

Since a Supreme Being must, on a scientific basis, exist, it is, therefore, necessary to accept Him as a higher source of information - beyond the jurisdiction of the physical senses.

Yes, it is true that most cosmologists have not observed God directly. However, cosmologists also have not observed dark matter: Even though most physicists accept that the universe is made up of mostly dark matter - to the tune of 96 percent.

If they don't know what 96 percent of the universe is made of, why should we accept their ever-changing speculations that the universe was created by strings or the so-called theory of everything? Just because they can put a bunch of mathematical variables on either side of an equal sign? Which of their mathematical variables contains life?