I highly recommend you listen to William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias or C.S Lewis. Nabeel Qureshi is an up and comer who will be amazing in the future using history and philosophy to prove Christ. We also have textual critics like Daniel B Wallace and I could probably make a pretty long list. Nabeel is mostly a historian and Wallace is a textual genius, but regardless we don’t just rely on blind faith and feelings at all.
Apologetics are becoming huge in Evangelism. Check out, “Cold Case Christianity” where detectives who are Christian use detective skills to prove Christ. Also, check out, “one minute apologist” on YouTube; quick answers to tough questions.
My experience has been that these sorts of conversations are limited to the context of a cultural experience that relates to one belief structure among one species (what are currently modern humans) in the last two thousand years or so. The problem with this is that as a species, we are part of a much bigger story than that. In our current permutation as modern humans, we have been around for some 200,000 years, so this point of view always points to a belief that God waited 194,000 years for the development of Judaism to occur before having some level of meaningful contact or relationships with humans. It is likely that early human cultures had a variety of relationships with God that resonated in accordance with their ability to relate to the world around them. What happened in Palestine 2,000 years ago is likely just one of these, and of course it has resonated for a brief time thus far in comparison with other such relationships such as Animists, Hindus and the like, which persist even today.
In the long-term, it is of course possible that our species will continue to exist for many thousands of years still, and in the process, we will continue to evolve if we don’t destroy ourselves. And it is possible that our rate of evolution is about to change dramatically through genetic engineering, bionics and other technologies that will likely place us in a category of being something on the order of “post-human” as a species within the next 70 years or so, if not sooner. Even if unaided by technology assisted self-evolutionary efforts that are currently underway, natural processes on their own will change us dramatically within the next 60,000 years or so. This is a seemingly untenable problem when seeking a transcendent and unchanging truth as applied to our relationship with God, because the conduit we currently use as our link with God will at that point be from an earlier species. It is fairly certain that our view of who and what we worship will have to change as well, although it’s possible that it will just become a component of a larger story much in the way that Lord Hanuman (A Neanderthal from the Hindu classic The Ramayana) is still worshipped by may today as part of the larger Hindu corpus of relationships and experiences of God.
I’m offering the idea that maintaining one static and everlasting concept of a God who emanates from the experience of one culture during the iron age within an ever changing species among countless others is already becoming a rather limited enterprise, and the product of a rather myopic view that is becoming for me at least, increasingly difficult to maintain. My ability to reason allows for the Judeo-Christian experience to be part of the story from which the whole might be observed, but certainly not in and of itself the whole story and consequently not the whole truth. Whether our connection with God is through plants, animals, Jesus or whatever might be the case, these are in fact connections that are very deeply a part of our personal felt experience, and therefore I have never felt that it is necessary for me to prove Christ to anyone. As a Catholic, Christ is my shamanic connection to the underlying and pervasive essence of the source of conscious awareness, no more or less than someone who might have an experience of the same through certain types of mushrooms, plants, chemical compounds, belief systems or simply through day to day life.
Just my point of view.
What I have found is that these arguments are useful in some cases, and not so much in others. I would never reject them outright.
.