I also thank you for the link to the Wikipedia description/definition of panspermia. You might also enjoy reading the Panspermia.org website for the latest “trends” and news. They have modified their worldview slightly to a “cosmic ancestry” which accepts some of the self-organizing complexity argument. Nevertheless, IMHO, the arguments raised by panspermia/cosmic ancestry are indistinguishable from the Intelligent Design objections to evolution.
you: That sentence looks so utterly silly to any normal human being. One might wonder why it should look any less so if you eliminate the latter two options... Better yet, let's expand them: The designer could be God, collective consciousness, aliens, a host of avatars, flying turtle droppings from beyond, a dragon cleaved in two, the tooth fairy, little green leprechauns from Uranus, the Dao of Qi, a giant's decaying corpse, the tears of the ether, divinely curdled salt, the demiurge, interdimensional summoning, or a celestial sneeze.
At any rate, the specific beliefs are irrelevant since Intelligent Design does not identify who or what the designer is other than to attribute intelligence ipso facto. I leave it to others to discuss comparative metaphysics as that is a sidebar to the subject I engaged.
For some “all that there is” is that which exists in space/time – a microscope to telescope worldview. For many or most of us, “all that there is” is much more than this. We include mathematical structures, forms, qualia and the ilk in “reality”. Moreover, most of us would say that “all that there is” is God’s will and unknowable in its fullness.
Likewise, to those whose worldview of reality is physical – objective truth can be deduced from within space/time because that is "all that there is" for them. But to those of us with the encompassing view, space/time is merely a hypercube of n dimensions which contains corporeal existents – therefore, "objective truth" can only be revealed from outside space/time, everything within space/time is relative per se. To us, God is Truth.
You and I may well have such an irreconcilable difference in worldview. Here are some additional pointers to such differences:
Some would say that the biochemistry of molecular machinery in biological life is a sufficient explanation for the structure of organisms. I would counter that “form” – or geometry – disputes that concept. Not only does DNA have geometric form but the form of the organism survives, e.g. the individual human persists although every cell in his body is replaced every seven years. Likewise the form of the organism can be a collective – a hundred army ants on a plane will walk in a circle until they die of exhaustion. But make it a half million army ants and the colony becomes an organism which executes raids, keeps a calendar, maintains a geometry of search patterns, etc. I would further assert the issue of "form" will not be addressed until all components are resolved: information (successful communication), autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence.
Some would say that this universe with its breathtakingly useful physical constants and laws is the inevitable result of multi-verse cosmology I would counter that this universe is expanding which points to a finite past regardless of cosmology (inflationary, multi-verse, multi-world, imaginary time, cyclic, ekpyrotic, etc.) – that appeals to prior universes merely move the goal post, i.e. any argument short of an infinite past would not make this universe inevitable. Moreover, all cosmologies require prior geometry and therefore a beginning. There cannot be a beginning without an uncaused cause, i.e. God.
Shall we recognize that we have an irreconcilable difference in worldview and agree to disagree? Or would you like to continue?
Which objections? Based on all the ID objections I'm aware of, your opinion here is blatantly wrong.
Among these are the ones who do not personify the greater power but rather speak of something overarching, which I paraphrase as a "collective consciousness".
Then that paraphrase is misleading and inaccurate. Your cause would be served by coming up with a better description. I'd recommend "cosmic force" off the top of my head..
At any rate, the specific beliefs are irrelevant..
No, they're most certainly not.
...since Intelligent Design does not identify who or what the designer is other than to attribute intelligence ipso facto.
Yes. When there is nothing to identify, it's safe to identify nothing. But I have no problem moving along with that: show me evidence of your uncharacterized intelligence.
I disagree. Personification is a matter of personal metaphysics.
I'm not sure what you mean to say here, but "intelligence" is by definition a personified concept. Below you seem to think that when I use the term "entity" I mean "corporeal" but, if so, that would be incorrect. I'm not at all confused about the terms.
As an example, I don’t know whether Sheldrake would accept the label of “intelligent design” any more than Crick would have – nevertheless, his theory of morphic fields would be an accumulation of that type of intelligence.
The morphic fields are the entity. I didn't say the entity had to be corporeal, because it doesn't.
The Flynn Effect may be pointing to something non-corporeal as well.
The Flynn Effect may very well point to something non-corporeal, but since the Flynn Effect is utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand, who cares?
For some “all that there is” is that which exists in space/time – a microscope to telescope worldview. For many or most of us, “all that there is” is much more than this.
If you are implying the false dichotomy between us that I'm inferring, then it doesn't exist. I do not limit "all that there is" to space/time.
We include mathematical structures, forms, qualia and the ilk in “reality”.
Yeah, we includes me.
Moreover, most of us would say that "all that there is" is God’s will and unknowable in its fullness.
So what? We aren't talking about what "most of us would say" but rather of what reality is.
Likewise, to those whose worldview of reality is physical – objective truth can be deduced from within space/time because that is "all that there is" for them.
So what? The objective truth is the same for both classes you've identified. That's why it's the objective truth. It's very neat, though, how you play this little trick all the time of making objectivity subjective, but it's not.
But to those of us with the encompassing view..
My view is encompassing, and surely no less so than yours. Please don't mischaracterize me. It's dishonest and offensive.
...space/time is merely a hypercube of n dimensions which contains corporeal existents.
That works well enough for me. But in truth, we don't have a definitive answer to what lies beyond space/time, only conjecture, two examples are: your supernatural fantasies and the superstring hypothesis.
...therefore, "objective truth" can only be revealed from outside space/time, everything within space/time is relative per se.
Objective truth is not "objective truth"; it is objective truth. The innuendo of those little quotation marks is a sly ploy at subjectivism, consistent with your overall relativistic formula. God cannot exist for you but not for me. God either exists or does not exist. Period.
To us, God is Truth.
Good for you. But the question at hand does not regard what God is to you. The question regards what, if anything, God is.
You and I may well have such an irreconcilable difference in worldview.
The worldview you've described is relativism, and I am not a relativist. I do however find it intriguing that you are using relativism to try to reach an absolutist outcome. My suspicion is that you don't recognize it for what it is, but I could be wrong. You may in fact be an avowed relativist, or you may be dissembling.
IMHO, there are three phenomenon in the physical realm which scream that God exists: the unreasonable effectiveness of math, the fact of a beginning and information (successful communication) in life v non-life/death in nature.
To be blunt, truth is not contingent on your opinion. So, if this is actually meant to present an argument for the existence of God, why don't you try presenting an argument to support the premises, rather than informing me of your feelings.
Shall we recognize that we have an irreconcilable difference in worldview and agree to disagree? Or would you like to continue?
As I've often said before, I have no problem agreeing to disagree, but that is not an agreement that our contrasting views are equally valid. I am not a relativist, nor will I agree to pretend to be one.