The witness argument (yet again, I know, I know)

[Mystic]

Did not do so here.

'I believe personally the strongest proof when it comes to God, is that his witnessing reality to all things,' (emphasis mine)

A premise can exist in the beginning, but if elaborated on, it must be seen as a premise and conclusion of other premises, when talking in normal language. You can't just assume something is said before therefore it has no supporting premises.
[quote pid='1773484' dateline='1528670344']

Our sense of personhood and the facts we know from it are part of the argument. Whether people actually want to go so far and say they don't actually exist, it's up to them.

I don't think anyone is claiming that a sense of personhood and the concomitant facts don't exist.  What is at issue is the source of the sense or feeling of being a person.
[/quote]
Fair enough, the whole argument was about why we can't be the source

Correct me if I'm taking you wrongly, but you seem to be saying that ideas are not physical things.  How do you know?

I'm not assuming either in the argument, I'm saying we are an idea regardless.

I agree that what makes me 'me' isn't my physical form, but that in no way establishes that personal identity is non-physical.

See above.

Who we are is an idea. What we are can be both physical and idea, but who we are is not the physical body. 

Not sure what you mean by 'accurately exist'.

The who we are is accurately existing no matter how we judge ourselves, accurately or inaccurately.

Again, you're assuming what you wish to prove.  How do you know this?  Not why do you believe it, not why does it make sense to you - how do you know it?

The how we know it is more complicated, the question should be, do we know it? The how is by his connectors, the signs of God, the proofs of God, the navigating Captains who are the beautiful instances of his perfect name and word brought to life. That is how, but the question, really should be, do we know? And we do. And once God is proven, the how proves such connections exists.  The question then becomes is this connection through Angel(s) or humans. Quran argues the latter, while many paganistic religions argue the former.

---

Did not do so here.

Yes, you did. And, you do in every argument you make. You presume the existence of your gawd, then proceed to build your "proofs" around your preconceptions.

And you wonder why we find you unfailingly unconvincing.

You should take a logic course.  You can in language sometimes state the conclusion or a premise that is a conclusion from other premises. Order doesn't matter. You have to think and reflect, then see which are premises leading to others.

I've done that form of argument before of this, but people have a distaste for it. So this is in language we are use to talking.