relda,
>> “Transcendence” and “immanence” ... lack coherence for an understanding or grasp of Reality ... as concepts, they’re perhaps quite valid.<<
Perhaps one could apply Tillich’s test also to the “coherence” or “validity” of concepts: do they give a “picture (that is) convincing, ... (that can) be seen by anyone who is willing to look in the same direction, (do they) illuminate other related ideas, (making) reality which these ideas are supposed to reflect understandable”? (Systematic Theology I, p. 106).

For me my quote from Polkinghorne passes that test, and so does the distinction between transcendence and Immanence - although I referred to it only as the historical background to my belief in the irreducibility of the Christian concept of God to that part/feature of reality which is within reach of science/mathematics. A kind of “via negativa”: God is NOT reducible.

Or is this Sobottka’s description more illuminating?

“God is another word for Consciousness, which is what You are. - Transcendent God is pure Awareness, while immanent God is the Background of the objects of Awareness. - Thus, God is What is aware of objects, and God is also the Background from which objects arise. - The Background is not different from its objects. Together with Awareness they comprise Consciousness.  God, Consciousness, and What-Is are all pointers to the same thing. - God, Good, and Love are all the same. Therefore, you are God, Good, and Love. (http://www.theawakenedeye.com/sobottka2.htm).

Nevertheless, thanks for pointing me to Sobottka, although my first impression is that he introduces concepts explaining why one should not think in concepts. I am not that acquainted with the Hindu insight to enable me to critically assess his ideas about consciousness and reality, although viewed from the culture that begot science they certainly sound esoteric. V.V. Ramman is a physicist with a Hindu background, whose many writings on science and religion I found more helpful. And, of course, there are physicists like Fritjof Capra, who are trying to make science compatible with Buddhism as does Raman (or Sobottka) with Hinduism or Polkinghorne and many others with Chtistianity.

Grim,
>>After 62 pages, what strikes me most forcibly is that every time we attempt to define 'God' we "(re)create Him in our own image".<<
Yes, the same as “every time we attempt to define” concepts from theoretical physics, we (re)create them using images from mathematics, because this is the only way we can access the basics of physical reality.

In this sense - as I wrote before - “man created (models) God to his image” just complements the biblical “God created man to His image”. Of course, these images - in distinction to mathematics - are culture-dependent, but that is because any understanding of the concept of God - again in distinction to that of (classical) physics - is observer-dependent.

>> Hardly a credible way to prove the objective existence of an entity.<<
You do not “prove” basic assumptions about the nature of Reality (c.f. again http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883), because there are no concepts more fundamental than that, understood and accepted by everybody, on which you could build your “proof”. You just try to make your world-view‘s initial assumptions as comprehensible as possible to others, leaving them free to share or reject them.

Bugsy,
I think your theory is questionable, as there are no bones in ice-cream.

Grim,
Did your time travellers find their way back to the future?

Dan, I'm sorry if my temporal inaccuracy bothered you so much; as I said, it was off the top of my head.
Since most of your posts seem to be concerned about Darwin, I simply tried to offer examples of contemporary atheists, or arguably agnostics, as Huxley invented the word.
Although I found Relda's insights into your post more enlightening than your own, I'm afraid I'm still inclined to say, 'so what?'
As I said in my earlier, apparently contentious post, I believe science is the study of creation, so it could legitimately be said that science is an effort to find, or understand if there is a God, and if so what the hell is It on about.
I would suggest I am therefore on the side of 'religion can be married to science'; but only if theists accept the scientific principle.
Obviously, some do, some don't.
I am not suggesting BTW, that there aren't other ways to 'find God'.
I don't doubt many thousands or millions of people over the centuries have found 'enlightenment' through some personal mystical experience, or epiphany. Good luck to them, say I. I cannot however accept such occurrences as proof positive of a God; which I believe science will one day provide.
That's my 'faith'.
In summary, I don't believe any theist can improve his/her credibility by denying science, and apparently the catholic church and mainstream protestant churches, as well as the Dalai Lama and many other Godly types, agree with me.

I find that Sobottka is inadequate in that he fails to address the Solanaceaen-Equine juxtaposition.
Neither Polkinghorne nor Sobottka discuss the Cucurbitaceaen issue in regards to early diurnal repasts.

Dan, I think your frozen confection posit in regards to skeletal anatomy is merely an assertion and a diversionary rubicund Clupean, as it is completely incompatable with the ontology of vegetative comestibles.

That being said, while I think Darwinian theories are adequate for cosmological substantiality as it pertains to biology, they are also insufficient to explicate the ungulate conundrum in regards to the Solanum lycopersicum transmutation.

Well, yeah.
More mayonnaise, maybe?