Apologetics or otherwise, what we believe to be true is largely (entirely?) about what we accept as evidence, including what we experience personally, and that may not be evidence that is ‘transferable’ or accepted by someone else as legitimate, depending.
An analogy is a three-legged horse, but try this:
An aborigine who, let’s say, has had no contact with moderns until he is given a demonstration of a functioning piece of 21st century technology, maybe a smartphone. He then later, without the device, tries to explain what it does to a fellow tribesman. His mate then pooh-poohs the description, calling it impossible and meaningless, saying it is irrational, and then demanding that his reasoning is flawless. God’s ‘technology’ and relationships with time and space and material are likewise beyond our ken.
We could stretch the analogy to include somehow that believing in the existence of the smartphone is a matter of life and death, and the fact of not accepting legitimate testimony has become lethal.
And then the conversation about gullibility ensues. 