I think the problem arises when we Christians try to "prove" one thing or another. You can't prove the resurrection or that Jehovah is the uncaused first cause. When it comes to convincing an athiest that a personal God exists, I think only the teleological (design) argument holds any weight. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have both gone on record saying this is the ONLY argument that has given them pause. It's also the argument which brought Antony Flew out of his atheism. So I certainly see the merits of this and I can't really find fault with it, even with my skeptic hat on. For this and other reasons, I think this is pretty much the only evidential argument I can say "proves" anythying.
So what do I personally find convincing? If anyone cares to know, it's more the witness of present day Christians and less of first century Christians. Some may find that surprising but I can't argue with credible supernatural stories from people I know aren't superstitious. To deny demon possession, for example, is very hard to do. There are far too many credible reports to deny such activity. And if what we call possession is a mental condition, why does the name of Jesus so often cure it? Put that in a bottle and make some money becuase you've found the cure for mental illness. Likewise, Steve Gregg's own personal story of God's provision is hard to deny. I could understand someone being provided for coincidentally but when it's just the right amount each time - that's impressive! And Steve's story is not entirely unique as there are many more testimonies like his. I have a less impressive testimony regarding financial provision (because my faith needs work) but I have also seen supernatural events in my own life which (for the sake of sane appearance) will remain undetailed.
Nevertheless, do you think appealing too much to "scholarly evidence" might actually bite us in the end? Shouldn't we have something a bit better to offer if what we claim is actually true? I welcome anyone to change my opinion.
