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

[Mystic]

Thanks for waiting, MK. Just a few points:

1.  I'm still unclear as to what you mean by 'accurately existing'.  The word choice implies that it is possible to exist inaccurately, to accurately not exist, and so forth.  Can you expand on what you mean?

I mean we are an idea whether it's our brain that generates it or something else.  That idea is a living thing, and what I mean by accurate is that what we do and our personality hue and shape and form has a definite exact form. The opposite of that is to say, there is no reality to that, and our mind generates an estimate to who we are, the estimate can be deluded, misguided or accurate. However what is obvious is that our mind cannot create that absolute reality to who we are.  That is that who that inherits all our actions in the past, in exact measurement, is a reality only God can maintain. God as in the Absolute Perfect being. 

So if we have an exact reality and we are created through a mind, it's either our mind or God (a mind) that sees us as is. 

Now if you want to say how do we know this. See the reply to Khemikal about love and reason.

2.  You seem to have a habit of assuming that mysterious or unexplained (to you, any road) phenomena must be attributable to God.  Why?  This is simply arguing from ignorance.

Is this fair?. Can perfect judgment be separate from giving us accurate judgement to who we are in an absolute way? And can perfect judgement be separated from the perfect being?

3.  You are indeed asserting the conclusion in the premise, by insisting that there must be some sort of objective Being to judge and maintain humanity. You then call this judge God.  The trouble is that you haven't shown why such a judge - or any judge or even judgement - is necessary or even desirable.

The argument is to demonstrate that premise, and that premise with some facts, lead to conclusion of God.