Breaking down the "God sees argument"

[RozKek]

It's simple premise.

Either A or notA.

If A is true, then not A is false. if NotA is true, then A is false.

I think I have to break it down this way, because, people often like muddying the issue, instead of dealing with the argument.

There is an objectively measured you.  For example, a moon you may have no idea what size it is, but it's size exists objectively regardless. You too exist regardless.

I am saying your traits, etc, you may not realize them all, for example, but they objectively exist. You may not realize your scale and measurement but it exists. That is to say, you don't know the degree of your intelligence for example but it exists. The same is true of your goodness, praise, or evil or inner beauty or inner ugliness.

I am saying it's the case we either objectively exist or we don't objectively exist.

Objectively measured you? The size of the moon and my 'good' and 'evil' do not exist, they're just descriptions of the moon and me. The same way the laws of physics don't exist, they're describing something that exists, the universe. You're playing word games or something.

If I'm wrong, someone point it out, be it anyone.