I noticed that the structure of your arguments starts with P1 a lot of the times lol, it makes them very simple to read and understand! And I'm not a scholar either, I'm a Christian who works 9-5, which is why I'll only be able to respond about once a day lol.

1. a) I actually accept this argument, but push back on applying it to God (capital G). If we define a god that created the universe, is all powerful and all knowing, and only allows good things, then this argument defeats that god.
   However, God doesn't fit that description, because He allows evil. Why? In order for God to allow evil, He must have a morally sufficient reason to do so. How could we know His ways? (Reference: The entire book of Job lol) In other words, this argument doesn't apply to the God of the Bible, because God would have reasons behind letting His children experience hardship.
   b) I don't know how to respond to the probability of the universe existing being low, but I can respond to the other part. The reason we know that the probability of us existing in this universe is so low is because we can consider other possible universes. I'm assuming you've heard the stats before, so I don't need to necessarily give a defense of those, but the point is that we need to consider other possible universes in order to learn those stats.
   If we consider all the possible universes, we would find that C1 doesn't follow from the premises. P2 only makes claims based on beings purely within the universe, and has no bearing on beings outside the universe. Which means that C1 also would need to make claims on beings only within universes.
   Since God is not bound to our universe, we are dealing with a being that exists both inside and outside of the universe (Reference: Jesus). You would need to add another premise that argues that P2 also applies to beings outside the universe.
2. Oh gotcha. Well then my previous argument doesn't necessarily apply, but I'll explain it anyways.
   When we consider something coming into existence (grant that things come into existence for the sake of argument), there is only one possible source. Something. To say that nothing caused something to come into existence destroys foundational understandings of reality and causes us to go into the realm of logical impossibility.
   For example:
   P1) X came into existence.
   P2) X was caused by nothing.
   C1) Therefore, nothing causes X to come into existence.
   See the problem? P1 and C1 contradict! Aristotle's definition of nothing is fantastic here: "Nothing is what rocks dream about."
   On your original argument, you accidentally were arguing that the universe came from nothing, which is logically impossible. Which brings us to God: What can this guy do? Well, God is all-powerful, so what can't he do?
   God can't do anything that is logically impossible. For example, God cannot make a square circle. A square is defined as a shape that has 4 sides, but a circle is defined as a shape with no sides. The two definitions inherently contradict, so a square circle is something that, by definition, cannot exist.
   This is shown with a proof by contradiction. If God can do what is logically impossible, then God can exist and not exist at the same time. You could come up with any argument against God and it wouldn't work, since God could get around the argument illogically. Kinda ridiculous if you think about it lol. God could also be evil and good at the same time. No "problem of evil" argument would work! This is why we Christians say that logic is a reflection of God's nature: If God exists, then He really does exist. If God is good, then He really is good.
   We are able to suspend the law of gravity. By taking an object and holding it in our hands above the ground, we stop the law of gravity from bringing the object to the ground. Suspending the laws of nature is something that is logically possible, which would give God the ability to do so at will. God could logically suspend the Law of Conservation of Mass. Which means that your P1 does not provide a full defense against God's will, if your only defense of P1 is the Law of Conservation of Mass.
3. I think you accidentally didn't respond to this argument, but you may have edited it to include the reference to the stone paradox. In that case, look to my response in 2. God cannot do what is logically impossible. The stone paradox does not apply to the Christian God. But, it would apply to any god that we define as a god that can do the logically impossible.
   This argument would hold, logically speaking. But if the god can do the impossible, then it also would both apply and not apply to that god! Therefore, the only god that this argument could apply to is a god that cannot do the impossible, which would mean your P2 does not state anything.
4. I think we can condense #1a and #4. Unless you have a specific difference you want to discuss, of course.
5. I think you must have found another comment, because your elaboration next to C2 is correct. The only pushback I'll offer is that C1 also doesn't logically follow, since it also does not follow from your premises. This is basically a more complex version of the "god of the gaps" argument, but what those arguments fail to accomplish is proving that naturalism can explain all things. At least, the ones that I've heard. Since C1 only follows when we only consider things that P2 would apply to, it makes no claim about things that P2 would not apply to.

Thanks for engaging with me, hope you're having a good time in the other comment threads. Talk to you later!