• Seeing that other apologists could make up similar arguments to make just about anything look true (for example, other religious apologists, homeopathy, anti-vaccines, etc)

I see a couple things similar to this that were probably the biggest factors in my deconversion now that I look back.

Within Christianity, over a long period of time, they are so sure about so many views that end up being demonstrably wrong.

They are sure that the Earth is the center of the universe. And when that debate is finally settled, they are just as sure that evolution is false...

And then, in time, when that debate is just as settled (in the public) as heliocentrism, they'll retreat, and then dig in and try to argue for the next line of nonsense for X decades/centuries.

Something similar also occurs in all the different sects of Christianity at any given time. They are often each equally convinced of mutually exclusive claims. One sect is sure speaking in tongues is from God, one is sure it is from the Devil, one is sure it only existed -- but only in the first century, one is sure it is nonsense (but they still accept all the other magical stuff in the Bible).

The interesting observation (and the thing that helped me de-convert) is that among all these differing beliefs, Christians of all stripes from all times use basically the same apologetic tactics and seem to be each convinced that they are right because of some sophisticated-sounding hermeneutic they use to "rightly interpret the Bible".

Using the Bible, you could argue for almost any position you'd like and make it look true as long as you find a way to tie it to "Scripture".

Reminds me of a quote from an old LW post... "If you are equally good at explaining any outcome, you have zero knowledge."