An aesthetic argument for God's existence (2)

Some time ago I proposed the below mentioned aesthetic argument for the existence of God. Revisiting my argument it seems to me that the only controversial premise is [4]. If one accepts this article as a proper defense of it, the argument goes through.

1. The sublime experience is a well-established type of experience (premise)
2. There is a phenomenologically maximally adequate account of each well-established type of experience (premise)
3. There is a phenomenologically maximally adequate account of the sublime experience (from 1, 2)
4. If there is a phenomenologically maximally adequate account of the sublime experience, then that account is the experience of God (premise)
5. The phenomenologically maximally adequate account of the sublime experience is the experience of God (from 3, 4)
6. For any well-established type of experience, in the absence of defeaters, the phenomenologically maximally adequate account of that type of experience is veridical (premise)
7. In the absence of defeaters, the phenomenologically maximally adequate account of the sublime experience is veridical (from 1, 6)
8. There are no defeaters in the case of the sublime experience (premise)
9. The phenomenologically maximally adequate account of the sublime experience is veridical (from 7, 8)
10. The experience of God is veridical (from 5, 9)
11. God exists (from 10)