But what about Consciousness and Light, which is the Energy of Consciousness? And therefore by extension the nature of Quantum Reality as a paradoxical Indivisible Unity.
Four references which essentially outshine all the arguments given so far.
http://www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm
http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm
http://www.dabase.org/hardware.htm
http://spiralledlight.wordpress.com

In the end it boils down to this the materialistic view of the universe has lead to some marvelous insight and invention.

Can any of these God of the Gaps or designer types provide some useful insight into the nature of realty to improve our understanding or invention?

The answer is no... I'm happy to be corrected?

Cobber

Many of the leading enlightenment and 19th century scientists were Christians. Much of the impetus for their scientific quest was faith based. Belief in a universe that was made by a creator underpinned the expectation that it would be orderly and rational, as opposed to pagan thinking that saw matter as enchanted and mysterious.

Understanding the world and nature was seen as a way to understanding the mind that made it. Newton, Kepler, Boyd, Priestly and Faraday were not just believers but active as churchmen and/or theologians, though many were unorthodox. Darwin was an active churchgoer for most of his life, though in later years become agnostic.

Towards the end of Principles, Newton wrote: "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being”

Dear Phanto,

<<Please don’t use words like God, divinity and eternal bliss. Use words that everyone can understand and which can be defined>>

In effect, you are asking me to limit my posting to the superficial and mundane, including whatever can be derived thereof, which is not of any significance.

But this is exactly my criticism of the author: instead of coming from God, then perhaps drawing some conclusions on how life on earth ought to be lived, he comes from physics and biology and attempts to make God a conclusion: God is not a conclusion, Mr. Batten!

The only value in science, is to fill our stomachs and shelter our bodies from the elements. We need healthy bodies to maintain our brains and spirit and mind and intellect, so the latter can discriminate against the vanity of the world and help us to become God-ready. So long as the vital needs of our bodies are reasonably served, we have no need to waste our time on silly questions such as how this world came about.

Simple maths for the willfully blind. If T=E and E=M then T can=M.

Yes, my dark matter intrusion theory comes complements of NASA and a veritable army of cooperating and consensus driven scientists.

And just a little more scientific than something from nothing or immutable energy and the unified energy field we call the entire universe being created by (beggars belief)scientifically implausible fortuitous serendipitous happenstance!?

From nothing you get more nothing and shiploads of it, if that is your locked and bolted mindset?

I come from an allied scientific background and like many of my ilk, cannot contemplate the atom, without also contemplating the very real possibility of a God particle.

If that makes me an independent original thinker, so be it. And believe the jury is still out on evolution theory and intelligent design alike.

I'd rather some folks would read some universally available scientific literature, then apply a little (still missing) research and critical thinking of their own, than simply resorting to impugning my integrity, knowledge base and intelligence as their first and only response!?

Make me go to my library and I'll bury you under a mountain of required reading and academia all connected to science and supporting the claims I've proposed in my posts.
Alan B.

Alan B you're a fool, If T=E and E=M then T can=M, might work for the rubes at your local creationist ( hillbilly) meeting, but you're just making a fool of yourself.