(December 20, 2017 at 12:35 pm)SteveII Wrote:(December 20, 2017 at 12:00 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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).
Well, it is your opinion that many or all of my list of reasons are unconvincing to you. None can be shown to be false (or even more likely to be false) so they are all rational beliefs. If one surveys a series of rational reasons for belief that, in their opinion, range from makes-sense to more-likely-than-not to compelling, then one has a cumulative case that increases the probability of their belief (in this case, belief in God).
For example, say I tell my daughter than an old army buddy is coming this afternoon for a visit (she has a belief). If a man strange man walks up the drive after lunch, is there more reasons to believe my statement? What about if the man looked to be about my age? What if he had on an army jacket or hat? What if he had all those things and flowers (for my wife)? The original belief can be strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive but fit the framework. Cumulative.
If I say Angelina Jolie is giving me a hummer as you read this, it has to be true by default.
THAT is what your logic sounds like to the sane.
