The Arguments of Natural Theology as Links in a Chain

I think the perfect analogy here will be a case built in a court of law where the prosecution will bring all manner of evidence to try to show that the accused is guilty. And any single piece of evidence might not be convincing, but taken together they could make it beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. In exactly the same way, these arguments shouldn't be just considered an isolation, but rather as part of a cumulative case. So for example, the ontological argument may strike you as based upon a premise that is reasonable, it's plausible, but it's not one you have a compelling reason to believe. Or you might think that the cosmological argument from the beginning of