HELP - Those with some formal education in the academic discipline of Philosophy -
About 20 years ago my professor put on the chalkboard a couple of interesting and logical proofs for the existence of God. They were four to five step/statement proofs each step relying on the previous step with a logical conclusion at the end.
All I could say was that they were quite simple and accepted in our discipline.
Respond if any of you folks remember something like this.
There’s a good chance it was some form of this: regent.edu/acad/schcom/phd/c … uinas.html
sounds like it was the ontological argument to me:
1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God exists in the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality
Or other forms of it.
You understand god? 
I have no formal education in philosophy but by your description it looks like the ontological argument that brevel_monkey described. It tries to prove that God exists by it’s very concept. It’s not usually used since the audience will obviously get suspicious that something must be wrong with it and see it just as a logical trick.
Other possibilities that are variants of the cosmological argument (requirement of an external cause of the universe), the teleological arguments (cosmological constants, biological complexity, abiogenesis, etc), the objectivity of moral values and others.
I think it is most likely some version of the Ontological Argument you saw.
Consequently, I’ve seen the transcendental argument stated simply at times:
(1) Either the Christian God exists or the Christian God does not exist.
(2) Logical absolutes exist.
(3) Either Christian Theism explains the existence of logical absolutes or Atheism explains the existence of such logical absolutes.
(4) Atheism cannot explain the existence of logical absolutes.
(5) Therefore, Christian theism explains the existence of such absolutes.
(6) Therefore, Christian theism is true.
Though, I think the person who presented the argument this way left out a crucial premise. I’ll not discuss the content here though…I post it here simply as an example of another argument that you might have been presented with.
There is proof that within reality there is some degree of aliveness and intelligence, down into the fabric of the way that the universe works and exists.
This is part of “creation”, but it is also part of destruction.
This is definitely not “God”, but anyone can call it “God”.
They say that design is intelligent no matter how many lackings and stupidities presist in life and in reality.
“proof” is also metaphysical in so far as it is a supposedly transcendant yet equal set of experiences which universally validate something imagined as “real”.
are saying that no one can experience God? are you putting limits on God? what do you mean by destruction? are you referring to evil as a force? do you believe in evil being a force? …or destruction simply as the opposite of creation? and if it is only the opposite and bears no relevance to evil then why did you mention destruction only to shortly thereafter say that God in no way is that?