I have basically four arguments, none of them watertight (uncontrovertible).

1. The experiences I have had, as described in my essay The Fifth Yoga, of coincidences that feel like messages from God, or answers to my questions.

2. The fine-tuning of nature’s laws that permit us to exist, which are usually explained by scientists by means of the anthropic principle (if fine-tuning did not exist, we would not be here to think about it), is more simply explained by the God hypothesis. It is certainly simpler than the other alternative, “multiple worlds”. Adhering to Occam’s Razor is preferable to inventing epicycles, as the pre-Copernicans did. Why are scientists so dogmatically opposed to the God hypothesis? It is not irrational. This is essentially the old argument from design.

3. The “super-unified field”, a merger of mind and matter, could exist. It would unify the “Theory of Everything” (TOE) if we ever merge all four forces of nature (achieve quantum gravity), with mental and spiritual phenomena.

4. My theory of the Great Wrap-around, wherein we create God at Teilhard’s “omega point” while God creates us at the “alpha point”. The image is of the Uroborus, the snake who eats its own tail.

While points 3 and 4 are only speculative, points 1 and 2 are on firmer ground. I do not accept Biblical revelation, or the so-called ontological proof (if God is a perfect being, existence must be one of His traits).

However, while I think that God exists, I know almost nothing about His nature. Only that He sends me messages, which shows that He cares. I would like to think (but who am I?) that He represents more the principle of Love than the principle of Power.