The thing about human knowledge is that it is finite. Not just finite, but actually rather minuscule. Imagine if we could quantify all the truth of the universe. How much of it do you think you know? A wise person would answer "next to nothing". Now, compare that to my knowledge. How much overlap do you think there would be? Perhaps you know more about a given subject than I do. By contrast, I know more about a given subject than you.
So, what are we to make of the claim "there is no God", and "there is no evidence for God"? These are two huge claims that would require a lot more knowledge than anyone on the planet will ever have. That is, they would require absolute omniscience.
As an apologist, I obviously have the job of presenting the evidence for God. Does it not make sense that given one of my hobbies involves presenting evidence for God, I am aware that such evidence exists? It is more logical to say "I do not know of any evidence for God". But at that point, you're no longer an atheist, you're an agnostic. You don't know something that millions of Christians around the world do.
But let's suppose even the Christians didn't know. As we've established, the entire collective knowledge of the human race does not even scratch the surface of all the knowledge in the universe (not to mention a lot of the stuff we think we know is wrong). How, then, can anyone possibly say "there is no God"? Consider the claim "I'm not carrying any money". This would be possible to prove. I could turn out my pockets, open my wallet, and you would see that there really is no money on my person. But to say there is no God requires more than examining one man's pockets. If you could quantify all the knowledge of the universe and be so extremely generous as to say you, personally, have just one percent of it, that still leaves 99% of it unexplored. How, then, can you say there is no God, or no evidence for Him?
No one can say there is no God. In fact, one of the sillier arguments atheists use is "you can't prove a negative". But it is possible to show that there is good evidence for God. See, different people have different sets of knowledge. The authors of the Bible had different sets of knowledge than atheists do today. They saw the events they described first hand. So, while atheists are self-admittedly incapable of proving their claim that there is no evidence for God in the >99% of knowledge they do not possess, the <99% of knowledge possessed by Jews and Christians throughout the centuries can be adequately pieced together to show that God, who has 100% of all knowledge in every possible reality, not only exists, but created this reality, and has made Himself known within it. Not only that, but He actually came to the Earth to be born to a virgin, lived a perfect life, went to the cross and was crushed for every sin we have ever committed. Through faith in this truth, we can be forgiven for our sins, and inherit eternal life in His Kingdom. Here's a negative I consider to be self evident: There are no good reasons to reject this claim.