Oh yikes. Dare I jump on this one. Seriously...I wish the OP could have contained one of these not all...
Big bang
Premise one and two are nonsensical. The conclusion does not follow from the argument in any way and in fact contradicts it in furhter meaningless words.
Moral argument
Premise one is false and the conclusion in no way follows from it.
Argument From Reason
Repperts version is much better than Lewis' here botched. Premise 1 is false, premise 2 uses "explanation" improperly. Premise 3 sets up a strawman against several versions of naturalism and also excludes other possibilities. This also has the same problems of causation the Big Bang argument did.
Argument From Design
This no longer deserves comment.
Argument From Need
Possibly the worst argument I have ever heard. Most theists would reject the phsyical god claim analogy anyway.
The Argument for God from Evil - This is a poorly worded version of your moral argument.
The only argument worth mentioning presented above is the Argument From Reason. This has been patiently and thoroughly dealt with. Now Plantinga Vs. Denett had an obscure little version of this at the recent APA conference which I posted about previously. It dealt with the likelihood that reason should approximate truth under natural evolution vs whether this was more likely given the set of evolution and theism.
I can account for reason under naturalism just fine. I think it's the best argument made by theists because it does force a non-sophisticated naturalist to make certain unpleasant admissions much the same way the argument from evil forces theists to admit that were God to exist it is his purpose that some humans experience a maximum amount of suffering.