Allow me to display a couple uncommon “proofs” (actually, simply arguments) for the existence of God here as just some food for thought. I can’t say that they are comprehensive and 100% bulletproof, because they are not. I believe it’s impossible to prove God definitively for everyone, since there are always assumptions somewhere that don’t stem from a simple “I think; therefore, I am.” However, I believe that it’s also impossible to truly disprove God for the same reason, and there’s also the human intuition of the world’s various cultures that there must be something greater than everything we can easily perceive out there. (Yes, I obviously believe in the existence of God.)

This one is something I wrote pretty quickly on a theology test early this semester, and so it’s not written well nor organized too well. It’s based on the first chapter of Christianity Among Other Religions: Apologetics in a Contemporary Context, written by my theology teacher, Fr. Roch.

Every day we contrast what we observe and experience with perfect standards. For example, we contrast imperfect human love with some higher ultimate standard. We know that human love is lower than something else. Thus we presuppose intuitively and subconsciously that this higher standard of love exists somewhere– that there is an ultimate Love which transcends anything which we can fully experience and know as humans– or else “perfect” love might as well be more realistic. But there is always a more perfect Love, and thus there is one ultimate Love that exists.

Likewise we as humans dynamically love to seek total truth (unless we suppress this natural desire). However, we never obtain that full truth. And even though this is the case, we continue to seek complete Truth anyway. Again, seeking complete truth and knowing we can always progress towards it presupposes that there is a complete Truth by which we can compare and contrast. And so this perfect Love and total Truth exists by our intuition and by our natural search for these things.

God, perfection by definition, is the embodiment of perfect qualities such as perfect Truth and perfect Love. Therefore, God exists.

The next argument was written by a classmate of mine on his new blog.

First of all, what is math? Painting in rather broad strokes, math is truth. Well, math is a type of truth. It isn’t math to say “that couch is red”. It isn’t even math to say “there is one couch”. But it is math to say “1+1=2″, or “infinity is not a number”. So, math means universal truths, not particular truths. Math means truths that God himself cannot change. God cannot make 1+1=3. He can, though, make the couch not red, because couches do not HAVE to be red.

…

Could one say “God does not exist”? i.e., is the existence of God a universal truth? Let us assume that it is not. Then you would have nothing - no God, no universe, no rational beings. But, I hold, there would still be math. Even if nothing existed, math would still exist. Of course, so would all other universal truths (whatever you hold those to be).

But, God is defined as the most perfect being. How can it be that his existence is not universal, while math’s is? So the existence of God must be a universal truth.

This seems to put God in the same category as math, and his existence as a truth on the same level as math. But, God is not by definition, equal to anything - he is superior to anything. So, to reconcile these two, you must say that math is, in a sense, a part of God. Just as Truth is a part of God.

Remember, this is not, strictly speaking, a proof, and my hope here is not to convince you rationally that God >= math (because I don’t think this argument does that, in its present form), it is merely to give you some concepts to think about, some of which may lead you, but a not strictly logical process, to that belief.

Interesting, no? I’d meant to write some other stuff earlier, but this is much faster, and I feel somewhat obligated to write something up. Now I need to go work on a paper, but please share your thoughts!