I find myself fascinated by C.S. Peirce's article A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God. I fear part, at least, of the fascination results from the fact I find it so difficult to understand. I wish he had elaborated on the argument (perhaps he did in some work of which I'm not aware).
These days, it is hard to avoid encountering some book, or person, or article, or forum, or blog where the reality of God is not debated. I'm of the opinion that the debate is futile. I have trouble accepting the possibility that an argument, based on sound reasons, is available in support of God's existence. I think we lack the capacity to even create such an argument. We know, simply, what we know, and what we know is the world in which we live (or rather know it to a certain extent). We can to a certain extent explain things in that world. Our whole ability to reason, to argue, to explain is grounded in and results from that world. If God is beyond that world, we cannot truly know him, let alone explain him or his existence.
But, Peirce makes me wonder.