There are many good arguments and evidences for Christianity. Being exposed to those is why I'm now a believer after being raised atheist in a secular country.

What I often hear in response to these arguments and evidences is reasons why they're maybe, possibly not true.

They're all well-supported, and I know my belief is justified. But, as with any human knowledge, they're not 100.0% proven. There's room for a little doubt. Therefore, some people feel justified in rejecting them. That's why would-be apologists often get stuck debating stuff...

...like the premises of the cosmological argument, thinking this will defeat the doubter's doubt and drag him over the finish line. No. These arguments can go on ad infinitum, because when someone's determined to hold onto doubt, you're not going to pry him out of it that way.

What Christians need is a different approach, and here it is. Get off the ropes and get onto the offensive. When a critic starts challenging your arguments, stop, and challenge him to present a coherent worldview of his own that accounts for all of the things you've presented.

Ask, what is the non-Christian worldview that explains:

the existence of the universe
order and design
fine-tuning of the universe
the lawfulness of nature
life
human consciousness
objective reality
rational thought
reliability of our senses
morality
good and evil
NDEs / OBEs

Explain that you have a coherent, evidence-based worldview that explains ALL of that. Ask what his worldview is that explains all of it. Explain that this worldview needs to be at least as coherent and evidence-based as Christianity for you to take it seriously.

Do not relent. What you will find is that most critics haven't thought about this, at all. They usually find it sufficient to focus on minor criticisms of your arguments and keep you pinned against the ropes. Turn it around on them. Make them present their own coherent worldview.

You might get, "I don't have to present a different worldview to show that yours is wrong." That's true. But he probably hasn't shown that your worldview is wrong. What he's tried to show is that he's not convinced. Because there's a small possibility that a premise in your...

...argument isn't true. But that applies to even the most well-tested scientific theories. They all leave room for a little doubt. That's not the same thing as proving them wrong or even likely wrong. A possibility that a premise might not be true ≠ argument proven wrong.

Once you've made a reasonable case for a coherent worldview with broad explanatory power, the only way to defeat it is with new evidence that seriously contradicts it or with a superior worldview. Ask your critic if he has either of those.