Critique this cumulative argument

[narnia4]

This is a long post, I hope somebody has some time and bears with me. If its tl:dr, just look at the numbered points and respond.

I understand that there have been "cumulative arguments" made before, but I never paid much attention to them. I like to think things through for myself and formulate my own arguments, although most of the time they aren't necessarily rigorous or airtight as far as wording or construction. Just something to do for fun. So I've been working on a weak cumulative case in my mind, but I'm really not sure how to best construct is so it will make sense. For now I'll just number the points. Let me know if it has any value, if there are arguments just like it with better wording, where its wrong, any of that.

One thing I didn't do or want to do is construct this argument by appealing to mathematics and specific numbers. From what I've seen, trying to force a formula or mathematical probability theories on to metaphysics and philosophy is way too subjective and arbitrary. So what I appeal to is simple probability. An important point, I'm going to grant some things that I absolutely don't believe and say that certain theistic arguments are weak when I actually feel just the opposite. And again, my appeal here is very simplistic.

Here's the argument-

1- It is extremely unlikely that there is a God, but it is possible.
Below are reliant on 1-
2- It is unlikely that the universe necessarily exists or came into existence out of nothing, but it is much more unlikely that God created it.
3- It is unlikely that the universe was fine-tuned to allow for life without an agent's direction, but it is much more unlikely that God designed the universe.
4- It is unlikely that human life should have come about on this planet, but it is much more unlikely that God created man.
5- It is unlikely that we should have reasoning ability, but it is much more unlikely that God gave us reasoning ability.
6- It is unlikely that there are laws which

7- Without appeal to God, we cannot explain consciousness, free will, or objective moral duties.
The below then, depend on 7-
8- It is unlikely that consciousness is an illusion, but it is much more unlikely that we are conscious.
9- It is unlikely that free will is illusory, but it is much more unlikely that we have free will.
10- It is unlikely that objective moral duties are illusory, but it is more unlikely that objective morality exists

11- If you combine any two points (out of 2-6 and 8-10), the likelihood of coincidence (the first phrase in each point) decreases and the likelihood of a Creator being the correct explanation (the second phrase in each point) increases
12- Given 11, if you take 2-6 and 8-10 all into account, it becomes much, much more probable that God exists than that he does not exist.
13- 1 is false, God almost certainly exists.

Summary- If you take any one argument for God on its own or one fact that cannot be explained without God, it is reasonable to believe God does not exist. Whenever you combine one argument with another, however, it becomes much more likely that there is validity to belief in God. When you combine ALL of the arguments, the existence of God becomes so strong that it looks to be undeniable while maintaining a reasonable stance.

If you deny 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, or 10, then you should already believe in God and accept 13. Maybe something like Bayes' Theorem would do better then just simple probability, but like I already mentioned I feel that its much too arbitrary. So I'd like to leave that out of it and appeal to intuition.

Finally, I should mention that I left out miracles, the resurrection, personal experience, the fact that people tend to believe in God, and other arguments. Any of those could be added to make the argument stronger but I figured it was long enough.

[narnia4]

Ok, I have to admit that I don't like the argument much at all, but since I constructed it I thought I might as well post it.

Here's an analogy to illustrate my general point-

Let's say that you believe that William Shatner killed your neighbor. If you tell your friend this, he'll rightly believe that you're probably crazy and that its exceedingly improbable that William Shatner killed your neighbor. But then let's imagine that William Shatner had a general motive for killing your neighbor. Still greatly improbable. Then you discover a man who looked like William Shatner was seen in the area. Not quite as unlikely, but still very unlikely. Then you find fingerprints that could be from Shatner. Then some DNA evidence. Then witness testimony. There are no other obviously viable suspects. Its shown that your neighbor was killed by a gun of the same type that Shatner owned.

So by itself, people could call you crazy to believe that Shatner killed your neighbor. Given only one of those facts, they could still say you're deluded. So what if your neighbor was killed with the same type of gun that William Shatner owns? But when you combine all of the factors, there's not even room left for reasonable doubt- Shatner killed your neighbor.

Part of what made me think of this is those Christians who are worried about the strength of any one argument, as if its not strong enough but also find 2 or 3 or 4 arguments somewhat persuasive. So while I think the evidentialist puts himself at an unnecessary disadvantage, the combination of the fine tuning and cosmological arguments alone are very powerful imo.