...

The correct answer concerning the evidence for God is precisely the same as it is for practically everything else in the historical record, which is to say the copious documentary evidence available. We can no more reasonably doubt the existence of God than we can doubt the existence of Alexander the Great, Abraham Lincoln, or any other human being who existed before the invention of audio and video recording and for whom there are physical artifacts that support the documentary evidence.

Can skeptics produce plausible explanations for why so much false documentary evidence of God exists if He does not? Sure. Just as I can plausibly explain that the myth of George Washington was invented in order to provide Americans with founding Romulus-style figure of reverence in order to compensate for their lack of kings and common history. I mean, there were no cherry trees in Virginia. And isn't it ludicrous to take literally the myth of Washington's rjection of the proffered crown when the story is a patently a straightforward imitation of the Roman dictator Cincinnatus.

...

It's one thing to claim that your brain must be talking to itself when you're the only one who hears it. It's another when other people hear it too.

Most modern Christian apologists are incompetent because they approach the discourse as a chance to explicate theology rather than understanding that it is a form of intellectual combat where the goal is to discredit the interlocutor. So, like Hovind, they explicate a little theology that looks like an irrelevant evasion while simultaneously managing to get intellectually discredited by young boys. ...

First things first. Destroy the interlocutor. Answer every question directly, on his terms, and then go after the vulnerabilities they reveal with a flamethrower. Only then, when you are standing upon whatever quivering ashes remain, can you explicate further if you wish.