Although I suspect humanity has a general intuition about God, many arguments have been given to give credence and refinement to that intuition. The following are the most enduring arguments for God. Often only strawmen versions are evaluated and found wanting, but a serious look into these arguments should give the skeptic something to think about, and hopefully help lead to that sense of wonder about God:

Argues for God based on the following general form:

1. Something of type X exists and must be caused
2. And infinite chain of causes is impossible
3. Therefore, something not of type X exists
4. Whatever is not of type X must have the attributes of God

Professor Koons provides an excellent overview of the argument in its most general form:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec2.html

Type X is identified as things that begin to exist

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

Type X is identified as things that have the potential for non-existence

Short/simple example: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8160/aquin.htm

Intense example: http://www.origins.org/offices/koons/docs/lec10.html

Argues for God based on the following general form:

1. Only law, chance, or a designer can account for intelligent life
2. Law and chance can’t account for life
3. Therefore, a designer is required to explain life

Many notable arguments of this type do not rely on questioning Darwinian evolution, but rather center on the qualities of a universe required for life.

A good, representative example: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html

From what I can tell, the general form is as follows:

1. Evil exists
2. Therefore, a standard of Right and Wrong exists
3. God is the best explanation of that standard

In order to avoid the euthyphro dilemma (God created morals vs. God restricted by morals), morals are to be defined by God’s very nature. This move is to be seen as a metaphysical answer not an epistemological answer to "how do we know God is good", and as a metaphysical answer doesn’t become vacuous for being a tautology (you can look at the vacous tautology argument against the morals are define by God's nature answer to the euthyphro dillema here.

Here’s one example how the ethical argument might be defended: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html

There are of course many other arguments for God, but these seem to be the most universal and longstanding.

All the arguments are similar in that they notice something about the world that makes far more sense if God exists than if He doesn’t. I should point out that these arguments are not just arguments that help believers secure their faith. They have been instrumental in leading many skeptics to believing in God. I suspect these skeptics at some time found a place to truly wonder in their hearts about God, to wonder, "could it be?"

A deep look at the arguments for and against God can be studied here: http://www.origins.org/offices/koons/menus/wtheism.html