I have been reading an excellent book titled True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism. The book is a collection of articles by Christians who respond to modern atheists, showing that Christianity is more reasonable than atheism.
One of the chapters by David Marshall points out that when atheists are asked what they would hold as valid evidence for God, they often look for a miracle. If they could witness a fantastic, irrefutable miracle, they would believe. Or so they say. Yet they then attack Biblical miracles as not being reasonable, or as David Hume does, define them out of existence before considering the evidence.
The Biblical writers often give examples of miracles they have witnessed as evidence of the truth for miracles. Regardless of whether someone today believes the eyewitness testimony, we cannot hold the Biblical writers as irrational or illogical, for they provide the very type of evidence that the modern skeptic asks for, and they use the only means available to them at the time to document the evidence.
So whether or not you hold the Biblical evidence to be sufficient, we have the Biblical writers being reasonable by providing what evidence they have to prove a logical point, and the modern skeptics being illogical when they demand evidence, then criticize the Bible for providing just that.