Christians have the poor evidence of historical evidence and that's it. I have a chapter on it in Why I Became an Atheist. Then they have an argument from ignorance, the god of the gaps. You either argue for this god or you don't. If you do it's a fallacy of ignorance--although I grant with Robert Larmar that this is a legitimate argument so long as science does not progress. But it most emphatically does progress!!! If you do not argue for the god of the gaps then you merely have a sustaining creator of the universe that looks indistinguishable from a universe without a god at all!
Okay so far?
Then we have philosophical arguments that the universe is not a necessary being and that we need a God for reason. I think those arguments are bad and fail to be supported by the evidence from evolution. And none of them can lead people to believe that the god of these arguments is trinitarian by nature, became incarnate in Jesus, atoned for our sins, resurrected from the grave and so forth. These beliefs depend entirely on the poor evidence of historical evidence, you see. And I mean it's poor evidence if it can be considered evidence at all! Keith Parsons walked away from the philosophy of religion because these philosophical types of arguments have met devastating counter-replies. Again, am I missing anything?
That's all ya got. Little or nothing. End of story. See ya.