I'm not really sure what your first argument is beyond the hope of a future discovery to affirm a panentheistic view.

I don't pretend to know anything about QM, but I think your second argument resembles a composition fallacy. A physicist could use QM to explain a phenomena, but the phenomena has to exist as more than a nebulous possibility. We should be seeing frequent and repeatable examples of telepathy and telekinesis, for instance, before we should be forced to explain them. Saying that there are complexities at a certain level doesn't demonstrate anything about our experience.

My argument wasn't directed at you, though, if that was your impression. It was mainly inspired by Paisley's asinine view of (anthropocentric) emotions as fundamental components to the cosmos.