Nick:
There is no argument.
Either you forgot or do not know that there are different senses of the term ‘argument’.
Your initial post begins with a distinction between inductive and deductive arguments. You go on to say:
Panentheism is a God concept which serves as a plausible premise for the relationship of God to the universe.
In a later post:
I suggested Plotinus' description of the ONE as a god concept from which logical deductions can be made.
I introduced Plotinus into the thread on Panenthisms since in order for Panentheism to serve as the logical basis for uniting science with the essence of religion,
Science cannot reject the notion. All it can say is that it doesn’t know.
Science has rejected the notion of matter as the passive substratum of physical objects that receives form. It does not say that it does not know if this is what matter is, it clearly and unequivocally rejects this notion. It is incompatible with modern science.
Are you suggesting that science denies matter vibrates?
No, I am saying that Plotinus denies that matter vibrates.
If science establishes a lawful relationship between vibrating matter as a necessary expression of the ONE for sustaining creation it will open new doors to understanding.
But science has not established that relationship, and will not establish that relationship without solid evidence. Where is the evidence that vibrating matter is a necessary expression of the ONE?
The Spirit in matter vibrates. It creates its being.
Where does Plotinus say this? Or are you jettisoning him?
Appreciating what matter is didn’t come from people practicing inductive science but from those remembering what had been forgotten and translating it into expressions of universal laws.
This is a load of crap! If you are going to attempt to unite science and religion you cannot simply ignore science. “Appreciating” what matter is comes from understanding what matter is which comes from experimenting, observing, measuring, and that is much more than induction. It has nothing to do with remembering what has been forgotten because it is only contemporary science that has moved beyond idle speculation.
Only nothing can come from nothing. Creation comes from No-thing expressing itself as nous or everything within conscious potential.
You are evading the problem. Plotinus is incompatible with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. If these “truths” are incompatible then they are not, as Weil claims, one thought with only slight differences.
If the duality of science is all that is, it means existence came from nothing and the height of its conscious potential is Man.
It does not mean that existence came from nothing. It means the we have no evidence of nothing. Man may be one of many lifeforms that are conscious and there is no reason to think our consciousness is the summit. There is also no reason to assume that man has reached the fullness of his conscious potential. The jump from the limited understanding of man to existence or the cosmos is unwarranted. The jump from what is seen in contemplation to truths of the cosmos is hubristic, anthropocentric, and unsupported by evidence.
However if existence begins from above …
If existence begins from above then unless the mind of man comprehends the mind of God everything we might think or imagine about what is above is just idle (or idol) speculation. One would think that the Copernican Revolution put an end to such self-importance.
Science can’t blindly accept it but neither can it deny it.
Science neither accepts nor denies the One, it simply ignores it as irrelevant.
Although Jonathan Bain teaches or taught a course on Plotinus (the link you provided to Plotinus) if you look at his list of papers and his interests the One does not play any role in his views of science or philosophy or physics.
The ONE is a good place to start.
With regard to questions of self-knowledge I think an acknowledgement that we are animals is a good place to start. We are not divine beings or semi-divine beings or between divine beings and animals. We are far more capable in some respects than other animals, but far less capable in other respects. Imagining that we are somehow of cosmic importance is self-congratulatory and irresponsible delusion.
With regard to the physical universe the ONE is the worst place to start. Instead of Jonathan Bain’s outline notes on Plotinus take a look at this interview with him:
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/philosophy-and-physics/ 
