A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it)

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Alex K,  because it is qualitative and quantitative our value both which are not existing physically (even Atheists will not say their personality is a physical thing but a program of the brain though they believe it is pure produced physically).

That is why it requires perception.

Exact value means we have an accurate reality, but I am saying that reality and perception go together. We aren't the accurate perception, we exist beyond our own perception of ourselves. This requires a perfect seer to see us if we have an exact value as that value is derived and created from his perfect judgment.

MK, you're obviously using "as" for "because" here.  But how can you expect your bald assertion that we have a value only in relationship to a perfect seer with perfect judgment to add support to anything?  This sort of "make a proof" talk is messing with your head.

It would be interesting to see a proponent of the theist position present a proof via the same exactness and precision as a mathematical proof: each series of statements logically flows from the previous statement in order to reach the desired outcome, and if previous knowledge is used to make a new forward statement, then that knowledge can itself be unquestionably verified via another proof.  Thus, when the conclusion is produced via proof, then there should be no doubt as to the truth of the statement/proposition. 

Now, for the sake of proof writing, IMO, it is interesting to consider the proof hurdles  that proponents of theism would have to overcome in order to write a fully logical, exact, and unequivocal proof:  they have to establish the existence of the special life-form who is the subject/centerpiece of various belief systems via one proof, and after that, they would then have to establish the uniqueness of their special life-form via another proof (note that they cannot begin this proof by asserting the existence of such a life-form unless they have successfully constructed an existence proof) .  Also, even if they did successfully construct/present a proof, then IMO, humanity's knowledge-base at the time that the proof was written, would have to be taken into account, as the proof could possibly be a logical argument for something that is presently outside of humanity's knowledge but can nevertheless be understood and explained via time, inquiry, and reason.