It was your opinion that the apple was delicious, but "delicious" is a rather subjective issue. I happen to like apples, so there's a fair chance I would have agreed with you, but I can't know that you had made a useful judgement unless I had further evidence. In this case that would be be perfectly possible to achieve. I could have had a bite of your apple, or, failing that, a bite of an apple from the same lot as your delicious one. That wouldn't have proved that your apple was delicious, but there would have been enough evidence to satisfy me.
God is also a rather subjective issue, though in a different way. Also, in this case, unlike with the apple, I'm disinclined to accept your assertion that God cured you. For a start I'm very sceptical about God anyway and there's a lot more at stake here than the flavour of an apple. That doesn't mean I think you're a liar, but let's say that I am going to take some persuading. I hope you can accept that as a fairly rational viewpoint, after all, I simply can't go around believing automatically every yarn that's spun to me by all and sundry. As with the apple, I really need a bit more backup evidence. In this case all you've offered is your mates, who are Christians just like you and, therefore, potentially at least, biased, and, at worst, your henchmen. If I knew your mates in person, which I don't, the barrier might not be so high, but as I don't it is. Now there no use in your getting offended because I won't automatically accept your word or that of your mates, because what you're offering, unlike with that apple, is not evidence. It's you say-so. No judge or jury would settle for something that flimsy, especially as you're claiming what appears to me to be some kind of miraculous divine intervention, at odds with all natural laws. So I want something a bit more concrete. I find it difficult to suggest what that could be, but really, if you want to persuade me, which you possibly don't, the ball has to be in your court. So - evidence, please!