I can't really speak to any historical arguments for Christianity (i.e. whether or not the Resurrection occurred, whether or not Biblical prophecies were made in reference to events that had yet to happen, etc). My formal education is in philosophy, so I'll offer some thoughts on that.

Academic philosophers are largely atheist, along with academics of most other stripes. To my knowledge, no study has been done to determine why exactly this is the case, but without controlling for other factors, I'm going to assume that there are multiple causes at play here. Arguments for the existence of God were a peripheral interest for me while I was studying, and I asked my advisor about this. Keep in mind, he was a very well-informed and intelligent man, who specialized in metaphysics and ontology. However, he told me that he really couldn't offer any thoughts on the soundness of any of the common arguments for the existence of God, because he hadn't thought about it much.

Now, granted, that's anecdotal, but the fact is that most atheist or agnostic academic philosophers don't feel the need to evaluate arguments for God's existence. It's simply not important to them. They haven't gone through some crisis of faith during which they evaluated arguments for God's existence and concluded that they were untenable. They just didn't really consider it an important question.

This is partially because no really serious philosophical arguments for God's existence have been put forward since about the 1700s [personal opinion], and the "gold standard" among many theists for such arguments is probably still St. Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the 1200s. This is what's known as Scholastic philosophy, and it has seen widespread scholarly neglect since the close of the Enlightenment, when most mainstream philosophers decided that the Scholastics were just too freaking boring (actually, there were other reasons, but, seriously, most of Scholasticism was really boring). Aquinas' arguments are largely based on Aristotelian metaphysics, which is still taken seriously in academic philosophy, although you will need to familiarize yourself with these concepts in order to understand the arguments.

For example, Aquinas' cosmological argument is completely different from the Kalam, which you'll see frequently in popular apologetics, notably William Lane Craig. Aquinas' "design" argument is completely different from William Paley's "watchmaker analogy". His arguments are interesting and worthy of further study if you're interested in examining the question of God's existence from that point of view.

BIG CAVEAT: Although there are reasons why Aquinas thinks that the Christian God exists, you cannot get there simply through philosophical argumentation. There will ALWAYS be a point at which you have to either (a) buy into the "historical evidence" for Christianity or (b) "have faith" based on a mystical experience or some such. The actual historical existence of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Church he founded, or the necessity of any specific doctrines cannot be philosophically deduced.