Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion.

Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages.

A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.

The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.

(And is just as valid an argument btw as any of the others, at least according to those who make it their business to study such things as theology and philosophy, science etc)

An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God.

Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Christian church, became a pillar of the church after his conversion on the road to Damascus.

Modern day examples abound but are often given the somewhat derogatory term of Born again Christians.

The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse.

That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them.

The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.

In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our reason is able to perceive the suprasensible.

Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding.

Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to our consciousness and unites them to one another.

God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.

In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when our understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of our hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly to us the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.

The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which we feel religious truths.

According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.

Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished us by inner experience, feeling, and perception.

Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God.

According to them we can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in our subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself to us.

In condemnation of this view the oath against modernism formulated by Pius X says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.