As far as I can tell, Rene Descartes makes this kind of argument in Mediation 1 of his work Meditations on First Philosophy.
1. A supremely good being does not create humans such that they are continually deceived.
2. God is a/the supremely good being.
3. God did not create humans such that they (we) are continually deceived.
4. It is possible that God would not allow humans to be deceived even occasionally. (premise)
5. However, humans are occasionally deceived. (negation of 4)
6. So either it is possible that God allows us to be deceived even occasionally or it is possible that God does not exist. (disjunctive syllogism of 4, 5)
7. Assume God does not exist (by denial of the second disjunct in 6, which is done for the sake of argument)
8. However, if God does not exist, then chance, fate, or some long causal chain of events account for my existence.
9. But these causes are clearly less perfect than God.
10. It is more likely that we are deceived if some imperfect cause accounts for our existence than if God explains our existence.
11. Therefore, it is possible that God exists and that he allows us to be deceived even occasionally.
One can then reason that if God's existence is possible, then it's actual. Descartes also makes the point that our chances of being continually deceived are greatly lessened by the existence of God, who is supremely good and perfect.