WLC’s argument boils down to something like this: If you allow the possibility of God’s existence, then God is the best explanation for the universe. If you require evidence for God additional to what is in the observable universe, you will never find it. Therefore the existence of God is the best explanation and he builds his case for Christianity on that premise. If God is possible, then God must exist.

These sorts of arguments are unsatisfactory on several levels.  They essentially define god into existence.  God exists, therefore God exists.   They serve as rationalizations for beliefs arrived at by other means.  So of course when cornered they retreat to the self-authenticating “internal witness* of the Holy Spirit”. 

I’m not interested in arguments for god’s existence.  What I want is evidence that god exists. 

*Interesting isn’t it that if your self-authenticating inner witness tells you that you’re the Emperor Napoleon you get committed to a mental institution but if your self-authenticating inner witness tells you god exists and you’re special to him you get a PhD tenure track academic position!

I experience the Sun on Earth.