I personally do not believe that any possible argument of God, or any possible formaulation of the existance of God is possible beyond a priori, which I believe cannot be proven even if it is a "correct" argument; and therefore, I am hesitant to conclude any possible argument as true and I am hesitant to propose any argument for God--and therefore I conclude that the only argument for God is a personal experience for God--or as John Calvin states,
"That there exists in the human mind and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity [sensus divinitatis], we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead... ...this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget."
This, I believe, is likely the strongest argument for a general idea of God, though not for the existance of the Christian God. Even though I do not agree necessarily with the statement in entirety---this is in at least a metaphysical sense, true.
This is the Godel's ontological proof, which I believe to be the most likely argument for the nature of God, (which can be found elsewhere in the form of not a mathematical proof). There is a great deal of goodness, however, I believe that this argument leads to Modal collapse if all points are accepted as true, however, this argument is logically sound.
The most obvious problem with a statement comes from the fact that there is not a given reason as to why the first few axioms are to be true. And therefore, I believe that such a statement cannot necessarily be a true statement becasue the axioms require themselves to be true.