Non-Evidentialism and being reasonable
Kelly James Clark, a Reformed Epistemologist (though Protestant christian in nature, the concepts precede their particular formulation), suggests that proofs and arguments are a valid means of suggesting truths - but they are provisional or "personal" in that they depend on the individual they are proffered to; an "argument from design" is going to be received in accord with the biases - cultural, intelligence, etc - of the individual, for example.
I want to add a spin to it; though we take Creation (though not causation), as a unprovable Maxim, proving comes from within as a proof of the Added Dimension of the Creation humankind (this is not an acceptance of the idea of "blind faith"; more on that later). We are responsible for making the proofs, making sense of the world, being the source of dis-illusionment for the better (this is not an acceptance of relativism; more on that later...). This is a personal process, and nations and corporations not being people (despite international legal structures to the contrary), don't have the same affect in the world as even one human individual does; nations do not have Tzelem Elokim, only people do (Rav Kook and Einstein have stated accordingly; Rav Kook does so explicitly from Kabbalah, Einstein met Rav Kook and they spoke on such stuff, so Rav Kook may be the source of Einstein's articulation of the idea). Israel as a collective do have an 'individual' dimension, and experienced Sinai in a capacity in accord with their nature.
Anyways, I don't think this 'personalizing' or 'customizing' is exclusive to the phenomena of proving and logic, reason, etc. I have in mind to bring up later how a Sefer Torah is treated like a person, and how (though not quite like above), when questions of 'belief' arise, we should conceive of our relationship to G-d and His Torah as we do regarding relationships,
other persons; if you ask for "proof" your parents exist (let alone the attribute of "loving you"; the nature of attributes are another interesting "proof" issue), you're probably going to get a potch/slap that your deserve. You don't submit Mom or Dad to methods of proof that are bound to things - especially not your mother! (you should call her BTW). In a similar sense, the Divine aspect of Torah is perhaps not argued to - it's argued from. And like so much of what is taken to be Divine in the world, we really are arguing from it not for it, often with no knowledge it's happening or that that is what we're doing. to be edited.