I disagree. The argument is circular, and thereby invalid. It assumes the existence of that which it is trying to prove. And that makes it an invalid argument.
It isn't that 'accepting God' is hard. It is that *this* argument fails to give evidence of the existence.
You can assume 3 of these are possible scenarios:
1 God is seen in imagination but not in reality.
2 God is seen in imagination but can be seen not to exist in reality or be seen to exist in reality.
3 God can only be seen to exist in reality and is seen in reality.
The argument wherever you start from, ends up proving 3.