lol Harry.
We've been through this before. What the man is saying is not that there is a specific subset of evidence the specifically speaks to the existence of God or his character. The man is saying that the evidence in its entirety best speaks to the existence of God, etc.
Signs, Harry. Signs.
The key phrase here is 'best speaks.' If you look at the evidence- everything... the totality of everything- but decide in advance that you simply choose to interpret it ALL within a naturalistic framework, then.... drum roll please.... uh... yea... no evidence, whether general or specific, is possible for anything OTHER than a naturalistic conclusion. If the 'best explanation' is always defined as 'the naturalistic explanation' then you've defined yourself out of even possibly being rational in your conclusion that none of the evidence argues for God.
Allow every possibility on the table and let the evidence speak for itself, and possibly 'best explanations' will emerge that are non-naturalistic.
Thus, this matter reduces to epistemological assumptions.