Following arguments I find good for personal God:
Argument from Religious experience
If personal God exist, we expect that God would reveal their existence to people. But now one question arise which is:
Why wouldn't God make their existence obvious to everyone?
But God may have perfect reason for hiding their existence from some people. If God has reveal to everyone, then some people may becomes envy of God, strongly dislike God or just don't want God. And some people may blame God for any unfortunate events, and may all scientific community try to find ways to use God like genie for variety of purpose. But God may know subconscious mind of one, and hides their existence of someone who don't want God or for whom their existence not good.
Other question would arise:
Why wouldn't God reveal to everyone in same form, in same way?
But God may have reason to not reveal to devotees in same form.
Suppose if some remember God in form of Lord Krishna, and if God reveal them in form of Jesus, devotee may request God to give their appearance in form in which he pray to them.
And third, as per principle of credulity, we shouldn't reject any experience unless we have good reason to. But if we want to reject all religious experience of all people, we may need positive evidence of non-existence of God. And millions of people who think they have experienced God are credible, honest people, who shows no signs of delusion, and many of them have been passed psychological test from experts in which they don't found any delusional effect. Therefore, experience of God shouldn't reject as lie or delusion.
Evidence from fine tuning
Fine tuning can be evidence for personal God because if God creates life and humans, it shows their intentionality, which can be because of personality.
In academic paper, Man Ho Chan argues from mathematical analysis and systematic comparison of different hypothesis and shows that data strongly prefer theistic explanation.
To conclude, after a comprehensive study of the fine-tuning arguments, the fine-tuning phenomena strongly support the theistic worldview.
Law of logic
Anderson and Welty argues that Law of logic itself suggest God who is personal in nature.
Thus, if there are laws of logic, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God.
Other author defends conclusion against some common problems, and he concludes:
So, there is a necessarily existent person. But since LNC is a nonphysical object, like A&W’s logical laws, such a person is spiritual in nature. So, there is a necessarily existent, spiritual person.
Joshua Rasmussen further gives some new arguments for some premise in paper, and argues that propositions doesn't exist in brain, on paper or anywhere; which is important for argument.
He also present argument for if there is necessary truth, it should necessarily exist, which helps to step towards argument for necessary existent being.
He also argues that necessary existent being is God:
If further reading, I strongly recommend book of author, in which step by step wonderfully argues that God exist.
Read: "How Reason Can Lead to God"