And if it is intended to contribute something new, then we have to ask whether that something new is something we can observe and study, which brings us squarely back to the original argument. The second type of response to the argument is what I will call the mystical response. This generally follows the intellectual response in making God abstract, a word for everything instead of something in particular. But it adds a new twist, by saying that people can have direct experience of this abstract God. The experience may or may not be amenable to scientific study.
Mystical experiences seem to have a very personal, subjective character.
It's difficult to imagine how they could be examined objectively. I think there are a lot of problems with claiming universality or objectivity for something you encounter when looking inward. I think mystics may simply be exploring their own minds. This may be a good thing to do, but I don't find it convincing evidence for the existence of an abstract God. I don't think the mystics' claims are completely beyond the pale of possibility, though.