If you like a Thomistic view metaphysics and like Ed Feser, here is one of Feser’s Arguments for the Existence of God *Redacted from The Last Superstition: A Refutation of The New Atheism, page 90.
____________________
1 It’s impossible to avoid realism about universals, propositions, and mathematical objects.
2 And the existence of these entities in some form or other cannot be denied.
3 Moreover, one cannot regard those objects either as material things or as dependent on the human mind for their existence.
4 There are also serious problems with understanding them as abstract objects existing in their own right in some third realm.
5 But they could also not exist apart from any mind.
6 For example, a proposition is the kind of thing that exists only as entertained or contemplated by a mind.
7 Furthermore, it’s implausible to say that triangularity, for example, though neither material nor entirely mental, would go completely out of existence if every particular triangular thing and every mind that might think about triangularity went out of existence.
8 For it would still be true in that case that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.
9 And other geometric truths would remain as true as they ever did.
10 But if universals, propositions, and mathematical objects are eternal and necessarily existing entities that cannot plausibly exist apart from a mind, and such a mind could not be a finite or limited mind like ours, then they must exist in an eternal and infinite mind.
11 But such a mind is exactly what God is supposed to be.
12 Hence, God exists.
THINKAPOLOGETICS.COM 
Hi
As you seem to be making a deductive argument, it will help if you set out exactly what the premises are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
Thanks Ed
Ed, I took logic in seminary. So I know what a deductive argument is. If you read it again, you will see Feser laid out his premises and conclusion. I suggest you get his book. It does more with philosophy than many others. I won’t be discussing this post with you. Got a busy few weeks ahead of me.
You know more on logic than me, then. My problem was with statements like these:
“There are also serious problems with understanding them as…….
For example, a proposition is the kind of thing that…….
Furthermore, it’s implausible to say that triangularity, for example, …….
But such a mind is exactly what God is supposed to be”
These are not either premises nor the conclusion. I need help to separate the argument itself from the supporting evidence.
My guess is that 10 gives all the premises and the earlier numbers support them.
I can’t see where the argument is that supports this ” …cannot plausibly exist apart from a mind”. A proposition might be a mental phenomena, but not the others. But then you surely can’t claim ‘propositions are eternal and necessarily existing entities’.