Reading this makes me feel like such a dry person. Your idea is quite creative and poetic. Yet that is all it seems to me. It sounds like an artistic analogy, not one that holds much logical or philosophical merit. There is no warrant for your connection.
A revision on the previous post: we know it exists because of its effect gravitationaly on other planets and how it bends light. I have to disagree with you, respectfully of course. I believe that it's these analogies between ourselves, nature, and the spirits beyond (if you will) that hold the most truth in our universe.
Don't fret about the nitty gritty definition of dark matter and its effects; I understand what you're meaning to say now. Would you rank these analogies you speak of above logical arguments? I don't want to get ahead of ourselves by putting words in your mouth, but I am curious why (if I'm not mistaken) you think a figurative connection between our observations of dark matter and your definition of a god is a greater truth than the reasoning that would show matter does not necessitate the existence of your idea of a god.
I don't see the arguments as two separate things, but rather I see the analogies of nature to be logical arguments themselves. I believe that these analogies have become deemed 'illogical' or 'irrational' and that is what has led to a lack of dreaming. I feel that understanding the importance of our connection with nature is incredibly undermined and that for us as humans to excel in all aspects of life, we must not discredit these analogies.