Yesterday, I tried to conjure God out of an equation.
It's kinda difficult to do, but once you follow a certain sequence of events, it's the obvious result of what has been done.
I tried to think my way through existence, looking for something stronger than 'I doubt therefore I think; I think therefore I am'. It's not easy. Saying 'I think therefore I am' assumes that you are thinking - and a person who has problems thinking probably won't see the problem in their own thinking (i.e. a person who has problems in cognition will have more problems with metacognition).
I tried 'I love therefore I am'...similar problems. The result - 'He loves, therefore He creates; He creates, therefore I am'. My demolition was that a conclusion is only as strong as the weakest premise - positing God doesn't make Him so (btw, I wasn't /trying/ to conjure God out of an equation).
But, having thought about this overnight, it's not as illogical as I first thought. Assuming that we exist (which we do), at some point we have to work from what we know and find the most logical explanation for what we don't know - sometimes that will mean working backwards...kinda like string theory's other 26 dimensions :)