>>1
...are you fucking serious?
1: God is not defined by being a perfect being. He's also defined by a bunch of other stuff, like being the creator of the universe. Even if you prove a perfect being exists, that doesn't mean you prove god.
2: How do you know god either exists in the real world or in our minds? What if he just doesn't exist at all? Neither the real world or our minds? In fact, god doesn't exist in our minds at all. Nobody is able to imagine a perfect being. Nobody can possibly understand what a perfect being would be like. All we can imagine is a being that we call perfect.
3: Why is it better to exist in the real world?
4: There is no such thing as "existing in our mind" anyway. If we imagine something, like lets say, a unicorn, it doesn't exist in our mind. An IMAGE of it exists in our mind. That's entirely different. Actually existing in our mind makes no sense.
5: All you're really saying is that if a perfect being exists, it exists. It just seems like you're proving god because you're toying with language.
6: If just because something SHOULD exist in the real world instead of our minds means it does, well, tons of problems come. Like, let's say I imagine a guy named billy who gets whatever he wants, no matter what. Let's say I imagine him wanting to travel into the real world. Does that mean he will actually travel into the real world, even if he "should"? It's no different from your argument. We are both imagining something that should exist in the real world based on qualities we are giving it.