Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[SteveII]

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.

I am not saying this is what makes a rational argument. I am saying that in addition to all the reasons that I have outlined here countless times why I believe that list, you cannot show they are false beliefs (or even likely to be false)--so they remain rationally justified beliefs. To say it another way, if you had a way to show they were false, yet I still believed them to be true, then they would not be rationally justified beliefs. 

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.

Assertions? Like I told Kevin, it is ridiculous to demand formal arguments every time I mention the reasons for my well-known beliefs. 

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'.  :

Bad parody. I can offer a hundred defeaters for Santa Claus existing. So, while a child's belief might be rationally justified in the absence of those, it will not be if I share them.