Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

The list of stupid beliefs that cannot be proven false is potentially infinite. I don't think that with a standard that low, crossing the bar of 'not proven to be false' alone would not bring a belief up to a point that it could reasonably be called rational.

That's an interesting story. Too bad your list of dodgy assertions doesn't have that level of credibility going for it. It matches what I suggested for a series of justified probabilistic references, though; but I get you can't tell the difference. Your 'cumulative case' is more like:

Say I tell my daughter Santa Clause is real and he's coming down the chimney at our house on Christmas Eve to leave presents (she has a belief). She hears a noise on the roof that night, a sort of clattering sound. Later she hears some noise downstairs and sees someone messing with boxes around the Christmas tree. The next morning she sees that indeed, presents have been delivered. Her original belief has been strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive, but fit the framework. 'Cumulative'.

---

Are you saying; that I should assume everything from you is B.S. by default...... Done!!!

I wonder if he has connected it in his head that his angry atheists disjointed thoughts are counterproductive to his cause in a thread where a believer is questioning her faith. I'm going to go with "no".

He was probably pretending to believe that you meant it when you indicated that what makes a belief rational is not being able to disprove it.