I do not find that a series of unconvincing assertions becomes a convincing argument through accumulation. A series of justified probabilistic inferences can support a conclusion, but you don't seem to be presenting that kind of case (like five causally unconnected things reasonably supported to be over 50% likely that all point to the same conclusion, which conclusion can be inferred to be, say, 75% likely to be true based on the fact that multiple lines of evidence show that it is more probable than not).
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
