Breaking down the "God sees argument"

[Angrboda]

Assume we don't have objective existence. We would then be an subjective experience only.  

Then we have two options:

Either our subjective experience of ourselves can have some justification 
Or must be completely baseless.


Assume we have objective existence.

Then we have following options.

Either our subjective experience can be justified in some degree.
It still cannot be justified at all and must be completely baseless.

What do you mean by an experience being justified? If by that you mean it is based on something (objective) then you've created a tautology here (either it's justified (objective) or it's baseless (neither objective nor subjective)). The obvious response is that it's justified by subjective facts. Depending on what you mean by subjective -- is a subconsciously held truth subjective or objective? According to traditional definition, it's objective (it's not subject to an individual's opinions and attitudes). If you want to say that the "I" is a product of our subconscious brain and therefore objective, I could in part agree with you. However what objective fact would your being a college student be? It seems your continuing to attend school is a subjective decision, so part of who you are is subjective. So it appears that the answer is neither -- it's both subjective and objective. Since it's not clear on which side of the dividing line the facts of the "I" lie upon, it would be clearer if you substituted "brain based" or "not brain based". Then the substance of your argument would truly depend upon whether or not there is an independent "I" that must be perceived by an external agent to be real. I think if things were recast in this way, it would be obvious that the "I" is a brain phenomena requiring no external observer.