Hi! I'm not very experienced in philosophy but I'll copy and paste some notes I have on philosophy of religion from IB. Some are not direct arguments for the existence of God though. Hope this helped! (I have finally found a chance to ~hopefully~ contribute on reddit after joining XD)

The Moral Argument The moral argument is the argument from the existence of morality to the existence of God. The existence of God, it suggests, is a necessary condition for the existence of morality. Morality consists of a set of commands, and there cannot be commands unless there is a commander; who, then, commanded morality? The answer to this question is to be found by considering the authority of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as the one that commands them, but moral authority transcends all human institutions. Morality was therefore commanded by someone whose authority transcends all human institutions. This can only be God.

Ontological argument The ontological argument is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through abstract reasoning alone. The argument begins with an explication of the concept of God. Part of what we mean when we speak of “God” is “perfect being”; that is what the word “God” means. A God that exists, of course, is better than a God that doesn’t. To speak of God as a perfect being is therefore to imply that he exists. If God’s perfection is a part of the concept of God, though, and if God’s perfection implies God’s existence, then God’s existence is implied by the concept of God. When we speak of “God” we cannot but speak of a being that exists. To say that God does not exist is to contradict oneself; it is literally to speak nonsense.

Religious experience Richard Swinburne --> “On our total evidence, theism is more probable than not.” He considered religious experience, cosmological, design, and moral arguments. While it may be possible to isolate each element of ‘proof’ offered and find problems with it, such elements have greater cumulative worth. Atheist philosopher Anthony Flew dismissed the cumulative approach and said, “If one leaky bucket will not hold water, that is no reason to think that ten can.” Caroline Franks Davis agreed, but pointed out that it may be possible to arrange the buckets inside each other so that the holes do not overlap. Whilst individual arguments regarding religious experience may be flawed, it is possible to take elements from each and end up with a fairly powerful argument for God’s existence. Swinburne’s argument effectively takes the form of two areas: the Principle of Credulity, dealing with the ‘four key challenges’, and the Principle of Testimony.

Principle of Credulity: While many people rejected religious experience due to scepticism, by saying “I don’t believe what you are saying”, and demand everything to have empirical proof, the Principle of Credulity reverses this trend and says “This is what I experienced and you must believe me unless you can prove otherwise.” What we perceive is usually what the case is. “If it seems to a subject that X is present, then probably X is present; what one seems to perceive is probably so.”

Principle of Testimony: Principle of testimony deals with how we consider people’s testimonies (what people tell you.) Swinburne appeals to a basic rational and verifiable idea that people usually tell the truth. This may seem an unconvincing, even dangerous assumption to make, but it is probably fair to say that “we usually believe to have occurred what other people tell us that they perceived occurring.” The Principle of Testimony suggests I should accept your perception of your experience unless I can (a) question it on the grounds of any of the four key challenges, or (b) demonstrate positive grounds showing it to be mistaken.

Fideism Fideism rejects reason for the belief in God and states that religious faith and reason are incompatible. Faith involves absolute certainty and personal commitment that goes beyond what is rationally justified. Therefore one cannot and should not seek evidence for religious belief. Moderate fideism sees reason as a barrier to knowledge of God, and views natural theology as irrelevant to faith. Extreme fideists believe that belief in God should be irrational. Reason gets in the way of belief in God.

Alvin Plantinga - Reformed Epistemology There must be beliefs that we began with, and from which we connect other beliefs and build up a picture of the world. We must begin with some building blocks (beliefs we hold to be basic).

Foundationalism Evidentialism is based on the epistemological theory ‘classical foundationalism’...that our knowledge about the world should be traced back to solid foundations. Basic beliefs do not involve any inference from other beliefs. Plantinga summarises the foundationalist claim as criterion F: “I am entitled to believe something without evidence if and only if it is self-evident, incorrigible or certain to me in some way.” ...So is the belief in God is a ‘basic belief’? According to evidentialists, it is not a basic belief because God’s existence is not self-evident or plain to our senses. The only way of rationally believing in God is to provide evidence or arguments for his existence. However, Plantinga argued that classical foundationalism fails to give an adequate account of basic beliefs. Foundationalism itself fails its own criterion and is considered ‘irrational’, as it is not self-evident. So foundationalism has shown that is irrational to believe in foundationalism! There are many examples if beliefs that are basic and rational to hold, but fails the criterion. eg. Other people have feelings. So Plantinga rejects the foundationalist account of basic belief because it is 1. incoherent, and 2. excludes many beliefs that are properly basic.

Belief in God is a basic belief because God’s existence is obvious to the person who holds the belief. Therefore, belief in God is a place to start from, rather than a place we need to arrive at... Belief in God gives grounds for other beliefs. eg. how we should live, and what the purpose of life is.

Blaise Pascal - Pascal’s Wager Pascal’s Wager is an argument for belief in God based not on an appeal to evidence that God exists but rather based on an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interests to believe in God, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so. The claim that it is in our interests to believe in God is supported by a consideration of the possible consequences of belief and unbelief. If we believe in God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will receive an infinite reward in heaven while if he does not then we have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in God, the argument continues, then if he exists then we will receive an infinite punishment in hell while he does not then we will have gained little or nothing. Either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or losing little or nothing is clearly preferable to either receiving an infinite punishment in hell or gaining little or nothing. It is therefore in our interests to believe in God.

Counterarguments against logical positivism (religious language) James Richmond believes that religion is something consistent with empirical facts. The believer’s faith is founded on aspects of the world that are seen to support that faith. This means that statements of belief are what believers claim they are -- legitimate interpretations of reality consistent with patterns perceived in the world. God is not an experimental issue that it is possible to decide one way or the other. He compares it to the way we make judgements about things like beauty: “The difference as to whether a God exists...is like a difference as to whether there is beauty in a thing.” The term cognitive has been unfairly hijacked by logical positivism, which as already decided what should count as ‘reality’. If ‘cognitive’ means knowledge about reality, then religious language can claim to be cognitive.