Genesis 1:3-4 - And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw ...

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 communicating intention. This is followed by the manifestation of His intentions. This verse is communicating God's intention to design and create 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.

Why is the light separated from darkness?

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 philosophy. 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 that 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.

What is cause and effect?

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 random.

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.

Can the senses perceive the Source?

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.

What do higher sources tell us?

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?

Consider another translation for these verses in Chapter One of the New Book of Genesis.

Genesis 1:5 - God called the light "day," and the darkness He called "night." ...

God called the light "day," and the darkness He called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. (Genesis 1:5)

Where did time come from?

The intent of this verse is not that the Supreme Being was going around naming things. Rather, this verse is communicating that via the differentiation between darkness from light, the Supreme Being created time.

The separation of light and darkness creates periodicity. Periodicity produces rotation, and it is the rotation of periodicity that produces the element of time. Without periodicity, there is no pacing. No alternation. Once God set into motion the element of time by separating light from darkness, He could now establish the pacing of time.

This might be compared to building a clock. When a clock-maker builds a clock, he produces gears that are a particular size. He fits these gears together in such a way that they counterbalance each other. This counterbalanced gearing produces tension, and the tension, together with the size of the gears, makes the gears turn at a certain period. This period is the pacing of the clock.

Now once the clock is built, the clockmaker can then wind up the clock and set the clock. This is being described in this verse.

God put time into motion early in the creation because He set up the physical universe to be governed by time. There is a beginning and an end to everything in the physical universe. Everything has time attached to it. This is because the physical universe - and all of the elements here - are changing with time. Every event and structure is transitory, and therefore, temporary.

What is the purpose of time?

Time is set up to allow for learning. Time allows lessons to be learned. Because of the transitory, changing nature of the physical world - driven by time - we are allowed to learn one lesson after another. We might compare this to setting up a school with the first grade followed by the second grade, followed by the third grade and so on. The setting up of the grades is established so that the child can graduate from learning one set of lessons to being ready to learn the next. Time is set up so that following the learning of one lesson comes the next lesson to learn. This allows us to evolve.

In other words, God created the physical universe as a school or rehabilitation center.

Time is part of the physical universe, but it is not an element of the spiritual world. This is illustrated here, as God created time. God is not subject to time, as He created time.

Our minds have a problem with the concept that there is a place where there is no time. That is because our minds are physical. Our minds are recording devices, and they only record what they have been exposed to by the senses. Thus our minds only have the experience of an environment governed by time.

Those scientists that analyze the singularity problem, and others who are also probing the source of everything, often ask this question:

Who or what created God?

This question assumes the element of time. It assumes that God had a beginning. The question is born from a mind that has only experienced an environment governed by time. A mind that has only experienced that things have a beginning and an end.

There is no time in the spiritual world. God does not have a beginning. God is eternal, and His spiritual world is eternal. Neither God nor His spiritual world is governed by time.

This is evidenced by these verses that God set time in motion. He first separated light from darkness (Gen. 1:4) and thus created periodicity. Then He established the first day by putting that periodicity into motion.

The spiritual realm, in contrast, is a place of perpetual light. The spiritual world is eternally illuminated by God's light. There is also no time in the spiritual world. God is not governed by time. He created time to establish a basis for our rehabilitation.

Let's use an example. Let's say that a substance abuse rehabilitation center has a twelve-step program for its patients. Every patient must undertake actions to achieve each step, and after finishing the twelfth step they get to leave the rehabilitation center.

Where did the twelve steps come from? They were developed by the doctors who set up the rehabilitation center. The twelve steps do not exist outside the rehabilitation center: They are specifically designed to progress the rehabilitation center patients toward their being able to re-enter normal society.

This is a similar situation with time. God established time in order to set up the progression for our evolution process - our process of rehabilitation.

Consider another translation for this verse in Chapter One of the New Book of Genesis.

Genesis 1:6-8 - And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters ...

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning - the second day. (Genesis 1:6-8)

Is this speaking of another element?

The Supreme Being has created water. Now He is creating another physical element. This could be translated into "sky" or "space." This indicates another element, rendering space, and the potential of the element related to the gasses, i.e., molecules that move around more freely within the expanse.

Scientific observation confirms that there are a number of elements (also called "states" in science). These include solids, liquids, gases, heat (thermal radiation) and light (electromagnetic radiation). These are the basic physical elements that can be seen with the physical eyes, all governed by time. There are also a couple of more subtle elements, but these basic five make up the gross structures of matter we see around us.

The primary difference between the liquid state and the gas state is the fact that in the liquid state, the attraction between molecules is greater and their distance apart is less. In the gas state, molecules move around more freely, with less density and further distance apart. Sometimes, such as in H3O and other molecule combinations, they can be a liquid at one temperature, and a gas at another temperature. The difference that creates the separation is a combination of heat and electromagnetic forces.

The reality is that these texts are discussing the creation of the physical world, which include elements that are in their liquid state and elements that are in their gas state. For example, mars may have or have had liquid methane on it. That would essentially be the "water" of mars.

Most interpretations and translations of Genesis have concluded that this scripture is discussing only the planet earth, and the waters and sky of this planet. This is a very limited view and interpretation, that obviously does not take into context the rest of the universe.

This is not a major problem, however, because many complex things are laid out in simple language in ways people can understand. Consider for example, how an adult might explain their job to their child. They would likely break their job down into the simplest terms - terms that the child could relate to. They would not get into all the details about their job. They would just give the child a simplistic overview.

This has also occurred in Genesis. There are two combined effects: One, that Genesis gives an overview of creation in terms that the human mind of a certain era - not educated in the complexities of modern science - could relate to.

Second, as the text has been passed down - first orally through many generations and then inscribe text - and subsequently translated into progressive languages over thousands of years, it has become further simplified. Because the ability to understand some of the complexities of science was not there in ancient times, some of the language has been simplified to fit with the limit of those understandings. This effort gives much of the language of Genesis its allegory nature.

In the example given above, if a father who was a doctor told the child that for his job he walks around and makes people feel better, is he telling a lie? No. He certainly may make people feel better, but his job as a doctor in a hospital is much more complex. In fact, he may not even "walk around" the hospital either. He might just walk from his treatment room to the reception area several times a day. So his description is not only a simplification of his job but also contains some allegory.

Genesis explains that God formed the element (or state) of air or gas ("sky") from the element of liquid ("water"). It explains that the first element or state created was liquid, and liquid was "separated" to form the element of gas, which provided the expanse allowing for the various atmospheres of the planets - as most of the planets contain their own unique atmosphere filled with a type of gas. Sometimes the gas is primarily oxygen as on the planet earth, and sometimes the gas is made primarily of carbon dioxide as on the planet Mars. Other planets have other atmospheres. The element (or state) of gas is also interspersed throughout nature.

What separated the water?

Also consider the phrase, "God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it." What does it mean by the water being above and below the sky? We can know from this that He separated gas from liquid. But what about the liquid that remained above?

This can only mean that there is a layer of fluid in the universe that lies above and beyond the various gases and liquids of the universe. This ties to the notion that the waters of creation also surround the physical universe in a fashion, and in those waters remains the "the Spirit of God", "hovering over the waters." (Gen. 1:2)

Have we ever seen these waters? Well, how big are our telescopes? Are they big enough to even reach the upper realms of the universe?

Actually, our telescopes - even the most fantastic mountain-top arrays and space-telescopes - are still very tiny. In fact, we have only recently realized, through these multi-billion dollar telescopes, that there are not hundreds, but billions of other galaxies in the universe, and our galaxy - the milky way - which contains thousands upon thousands of solar systems each containing a sun with planets circling around them, is but one galaxy. So we are finding that the physical universe is simply gigantic and beyond anything that humankind has ever even imagined.

It is as if we are ants at the bottom of California's Death Valley trying to figure out what is at the top of Mount Everest. Just as the ants have little or no facility to see to the top of Mount Everest, we have no way to see to the reaches of the physical universe.

Furthermore, our minds cannot even comprehend the size and scope of the physical universe. It is so large, that our senses - even with our gigantic telescopes - just cannot gain a "scope" of it.

Can science determine the source of creation?

For most scientists and astrophysicists, having a large telescope or microscope means that we are advanced enough and observant enough to make big speculative theories about the structure, size, and nature of the universe. This is simply ignorance combined with pride. Even with these expensive and supposedly advanced tools, the complexities of the universe still evade us. The universe keeps getting smaller and larger as we gain more instrumentation.

Rather than being so ignorantly proud, we should take the position of humility. We should realize that the complete physical universe is simply out of our range of perception. We should realize that perhaps we can learn something from a higher power.

There are two types of learning processes: One is called the ascending process. In this process, we utilize our powers of observation to learn things, and then we make hypotheses about what we cannot observe. As we can see from the hypotheses over the past 500 years of science, this process is plagued with errors. Leading scientists of the past have been so many theories about so many things that have been proven wrong. They have been proven wrong as technology has allowed for better microscopes, telescopes and other types of "scopes."

The progressive inventions of instruments have illustrated not that the scientific method requiring observation is dependable, but rather that it is grossly unreliable. It is wrought with error, because our senses (and their instruments) are by nature, limited. This is why scientists have to keep coming up with new theories: Their older theories were proven wrong.

The other process of learning is the descending process. In this process, we learn from information descending from a higher intelligence. In this process, we do not rely upon our senses for the complete scope of things. Rather, we utilize our intelligence to try to understand the information that is handed down to us. This comes through scripture and through God's representatives.

This does not mean that we cannot apply science. Surely science has its place, and we can use our science to advance our means of communicating and understanding each other. But if we are truly scientific, we will clearly understand the limitations of the senses and their extensions (our telescopes and microscopes), and focus our research on truly understanding who we are, where we come from, what our purpose in life is, and who God is.

Does creation have a design?

We can see organization and design when we see the scientific equations of physicists, including Newton's laws and Einstein's theories. These equations - representing two seemingly disconnected calculations bridged by an equal sign - provide proof that there is symmetry and orchestration within the physical world. And scientists still accept most of these equations because they have been applied over and over to different events occurring at different times. The fact that the events occurring within the universe fit formulas and equations illustrates design. And design indicates intelligence.

Logically, such design could not be the result of accidental randomness. This is why both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, with their great knowledge of science, accepted the existence of a Supreme Being who ultimately designed the physical universe. They saw His design within their equations and formulas.

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." (Albert Einstein)

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts. The rest are details." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

"And from true lordship it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; from the other perfections, that He is supreme, or supremely perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, He endures from eternity to eternity, and He is present from infinity to infinity; He rules all things, and He knows all things that happen or can happen." (Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687), 3rd edition (1726), trans. I. B. Cohen and Anne Whitman (1999), General Scholium, 941.)

These two scientists, from whom much of modern science has been built upon, saw the Supreme Being within nature and its natural laws. They saw design that could not be accidental. They saw a designer within the programming inherent within the physical world.

Those scientists who reject God have no scientific basis for it. They are simply wanting to find a reason to reject God. Their scientific journals dismiss the concept of a Creator not because it is not scientific, but because they each chose to reject God on a personal basis.

It is certainly scientific to accept an ultimate designer for the physical world. To accept a hypothesis that all this design magically appeared from nothing and with no ultimate cause is completely unscientific. It is unscientific to suppose that energy, light and the symmetry inherent in water and the other elements all arose from nothing.

Science is based on observation and hypothesis. Most of today's science is thus speculative. No, we cannot readily see God with these physical senses, unless He appears before them. But a lack of observation has never prevented modern scientists from speculating and hypothesizing about so many other things that have never been seen - nor could ever be seen. Much of quantum physics is not observable, for example.

In quantum physics, scientists make hypotheses and formulations based not upon seeing quarks or antimatter, but upon trying to provide an explanation for something they cannot otherwise explain. They see outward physical events and create explanations based on the notion that there is no ultimate intelligence behind them. It is not as if they see any quarks or antimatter.

What is the God particle?

The irony of quantum physics is that these same scientists who reject God's existence have contrived a speculative element they call the "God Particle." This particle, also called Higgs boson, is supposedly the molecule persistent everywhere that provides the key to understanding the universe.

So these scientists will accept an unseen theoretical "God particle" but reject the existence of God? This is lunacy.

The very fact that we see so much organization and design within the physical universe illustrate intelligence. To refuse this notion yet accept intelligence among sub-atomic elements is unscientific.

It is not as if cosmologists are seeing all those things they have hypothesized - such as the "strings" of the "string theory" and the "things" of the "theory of everything." These are all imaginative speculative hypotheses that attempt to explain how the universe arose from nothing.

Scripture provides another type of science: The science of reliance upon a higher authority. This is the science of humility. This is also the science of understanding God’s existence through personal relationships.

Does love reveal God?

Thousands of years of scientific observation tells us that each of us needs love. Each of us needs relationships. Each of us needs to depend upon someone. Each of us needs the fulfillment of loving and caring for someone. Even these modern scientists who deny God's existence go home to their families and/or pets and seek loving relationships. This is the Truth of our existence. Within these physical bodies are personalities who seek to love and be loved.

And since none of us are ultimately satisfied by the love we exchange with our families, pets, audiences and others - evidenced by suicides and depression among even those who are famous or have large families - we each need a loving relationship with someone else - a Supreme Being.

And since we are all searching for that "soulmate," that ultimate person who we can depend upon, someone who will always be there for us, and someone who will love us no matter what - things no human could satisfy - we each are looking for a spiritual relationship with the ultimate person - the Supreme Being.

These are all ultimate truths that cannot be denied scientifically. They have been established by thousands of years of human experience. We know them to be true because we see them within our selves and among others. These are scientific truths that we do not need a Harvard professor to tell us about. These are truths we can see plainly within our lives.

Each of us is looking for that ultimate loving relationship because each of us was created by the Supreme Being for the purpose of exchanging a loving relationship with Him. We were created as one of God's servitors. This is why we feel better when we help others than when we hurt others. We are ultimately caregivers. This is our natural position, but because love also requires freedom, we were granted the freedom to love God or not.

The purpose of the physical universe is to house those of us who chose not to love God. This is that place where some of us could virtually be away from Him. This is the reason we cannot see God with the eyes of these temporary physical bodies. And this is the reason scientists create speculative theories that allow us to ignore the Supreme Being.

The greatest scientist is one who spends his or her life focused upon these core questions: Who am I? Why am I here? Who is God? These are the truly scientific questions in life. The other issues are simply, as Einstein put it, "details."

Consider another translation for these verses in Chapter One of the New Book of Genesis.

Genesis 1:14-19 - And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate ...

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning - the fourth day. (Genesis 1:14-19)

What is electromagnetism?

Here we find the Supreme Being has produced an intertwining of light, time and the electromagnetic elements that allow planets to rotate around the sun; and solar systems that rotate around each galaxy center.

Remember again that this is a simplified version of creation that allows the human mind and sensual experience to relate with the concept that everything around us has been created by a Supreme Being.

For those who consider themselves scientists who might scoff at such a simplistic version of creation, we ask what would be the result if the explanation of creation discussed black holes and galaxies and the so many other elements of nature that humankind had never heard of? Would this create any more understanding of the central lesson - that everything was created by a Supreme Being?

Even today, though physicists now theorize that the center of each galaxy is a black hole, no one has ever seen a black hole and there is no absolute proof they exist. How do they know the center of the galaxy is a black hole, then? The answer is that the black hole is the only thing they have been able to imagine that will fit the holes in their observations and equations.

But what if the scripture discussed scientific elements never seen before? What if Genesis discussed the many, many elements that scientists have yet to discover? These elements, would, of course, be too small for the eye and modern microscopes to see, and/or too far away for our telescopes or radioscopes to pick up. Would scientists then assume those elements existed, and suddenly trust that God must have created the universe since they have never heard of those elements?

No. How do we know this? Because the scriptures already describe elements beyond our senses, and this doesn't seem to make much difference: the scriptures describe the existence of a Supreme Being Who has the ability to create the entire physical universe, and a transcendental universe of another dimension, outside the physical dimension. And this doesn't seem to make much difference to many modern scientists. They still want to deny the existence of God.

Why can't our instruments find God?

This is despite the fact that modern scientists keep looking deeper and deeper, smaller and smaller, and further and further away for the precise element that is God. Scientists are looking for that element that provides the key to the structure and creation of the universe. They keep looking for that particle that holds matter together on the most fundamental level. They are, in fact, looking for God.

It is so obvious that modern physicists are looking for God that in 1993, Leon Lederman, Ph.D. coined the hypothetical particle determined in particle accelerator studies the "God Particle." This particle, also called the Higgs Boson particle, has never been seen or otherwise observed directly. It is only something that would fit their calculations. It has remained, according to these scientists, "elusive."

Okay, so let's get this straight. First, modern science has rejected the concept that a Supreme Being exists, even though the existence of a Supreme Being is the only element that can perfectly provide a clear and logical Source for all the material elements, as well as the source for all the living elements (personality, the desire to survive, intelligence, etc.).

Instead and in lieu of this most obvious choice, theoretical physicists insist on an imaginary and elusive particle they call the "God particle" that supposedly fits their equations. So this elusive particle must be the key element that is the source of everything?

Does this make any sense? Is it also the source of life? How can it be the source of life if it is not in itself alive?

Furthermore, this elusive "God particle" is being portrayed by science as having no intelligence and no purpose for existence. It is like all their other theories including quarks, strings, and theories of everything: Objects of their imaginations. They are lifeless creations of their minds. They are no more real than a bedtime story made up to put a child to sleep.

And these theoretical physicists like to accuse scripture of being without proof? What kind of proof do they have that their theories of accidental, random creation are true?

Even though the existence of a Supreme Being would fulfill all their mathematical equations and calculations (evidenced by naming the Higgs Boson particle the "God Particle"), these theoretical scientists prefer their imaginary theories. Why? Because these theories give these individual scientists the means to continue to ignore God's existence.

If they can ignore God's existence, they don't have to worship anyone other than themselves. They don't have to glorify anyone other than themselves and their colleagues. They can seek their own glory and their own fame as they achieve the acclaim and admiration of others for coming up with the most profound 'theory of everything.'

Why? Because this is our disease. This is why we are here in this physical universe in the first place: Because we wanted to get away from God. We want to ignore God. Why? Because we would rather be God than serve God.

If God exists, why can't we see Him?

The first part of the answer is that God is not like a mountain or a rock. He is not an inanimate object: God is alive. He is a Person. God is the Supreme Person. He is a living being, with intelligence, emotions, feelings, individuality, and purpose, Who comes from a dimension transcendental to this physical dimension.

The second part of the answer is that just because God isn't seen with the physical eyes doesn't mean He doesn't exist. It is like two children playing in a park down the street from their houses, and one asking the other: "If your parents exist, why can't I see them?"

Obviously, we cannot see God because our senses, on their own, do not have the ability to see God. They are equipped to see only a small range of physical structures, made of molecules that light reflects off and through with particular colors. Scientists also accept this, as they propose that quarks exist even though we cannot see a quark.

So our real question should be: Why are our eyes not equipped to see God?

Put in a better way: Why is God not allowing us to see Him?

Our physical bodies were designed to be in ignorance about God's existence. This is part of God's design. There is a purpose for this.

Each of us is temporarily occupying a gross physical body designed for certain tasks: navigating a physical world replete with a host of lessons and learning experiences. We can each look at our lives and realize that we are each going through a unique set of learning experiences through the years. And through each of the learning experiences, we are met up with a set of choices about what direction we want to go from here.

During this learning environment, God is unseen. This is because, first of all, each of us rejected God at one point or another in our existence. Thus, we have landed in these temporary physical bodies that cannot see Him. So we got our wish. Like an angry teenager who runs away from home, we are each now seemingly independent of God. We can now pretend that each of us is the center of the universe - even though it is obvious we are not.

Is there another world?

There is a dimension that is transcendental to this one. It is the world of love and loving service. In that world, everyone loves and serves the Supreme Being and the Supreme Being's associates. But a few of us decided we were too good for that. We decided we wanted to be served. We wanted to be the center. We wanted to be the subject of worship and admiration. In other words, we got greedy. We got selfish. And it is this self-centeredness that plays out amongst our earthly society – as we can see all around us in the greed, violence, and struggles for power taking place throughout this world.

Now we are here, seemingly independent of God. We can each now choose whether we want to accept that someone greater than me exists. Can there be a God? Someone greater than me? We must choose. And go through our various lessons. This is also why we are here: To rehabilitate. If we choose to learn and evolve, and come to accept that God exists, then we can evolve and grow closer to Him, and maybe return to the spiritual world.

And this is precisely why God is invisible to our eyes at the moment. If His existence was obvious, we would not have the choice to accept Him or not.

Let's compare this to a situation we see in typical relationships. While this analogy isn't complete, it will serve the purpose. Let's say a wife begins realizing that her husband no longer treasures their relationship. He is taking their relationship for granted and begins flirting with other women and carrying on as though he doesn't care for her. So she says enough is enough and tells him they need to separate for a while to see if he really wants to be married to her.

So they separate. How do they separate? Do they just move into adjacent rooms? No. One of them moves out of the house so that they do not see each other for a while. For a period of time, they have no contact. Why?

The period of no contact allows the man the ability to independently choose whether he wants to be with his wife. Not having her around gives him the freedom to choose. If every time he turned around she was there, this would hardly give the man the ability to make a clear choice.

This is sort of what the Supreme Being has done. Each of us is intimately connected to God. Once we rejected Him, He sent us off to be on our own, gave us a virtual world and temporary physical bodies to dwell within temporarily; in order to give us the choice of whether we wanted to be with Him or not. That is the purpose of the physical world.

Consider another translation for these verses in Chapter One of the New Book of Genesis.