Yes; below are three assumptions which are reliable, by the definition you quote, and which reasonably lead to belief in God:

1. Complex functional machines have a designer. This is the famous watchmaker analogy. Spaceships, watches, computers, and cars have designers; and if we found one such machine in a junkyard, we would know it wasn't a tornado that made it! It is thus reasonable from experience to assume that nature has a Designer, too. It is full of micro-machinery which surpasses the complexity of amazing man-made machines. Even many evolutionists will admit that nature has a surprising level of apparent design. Thus they indirectly (and maybe sometimes, directly) admit that belief in a Designer is reasonable, even if they think it is wrong. But the logic which leads to believing in a Designer for nature is reliable, since it results in an extremely high proportion of true beliefs in other areas.
2. Language implies an intelligent author. Everywhere we find genuine language, we infer authorship. If we read a large book or find a complex and coherent message scribbled in the sand, we know an intelligent mind was behind it. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the language of DNA has an intelligent Author; and considering the variety, unity, creativity, and mind-bending complexity of DNA--in everything from trees, to hummingbirds, to lions, to humans--it is reasonable to infer that this Author is God. The process leading to this conclusion works so well outside the area of DNA that it is reliable by the definition given.
3. All natural things and events have a cause. This also works so well in everyday life, and it is thus reliable. If we see a turtle on a fencepost, we know that there is a cause for it, and that the cause isn't the turtle's climbing ability! If we find the glass window broken in and valuables missing, we know that the cause was probably a burglar. Certain things may happen by complex and seemingly "random" precursor events, but we assume that every natural thing and event was caused by something adequate to the result. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the existence of the universe itself has a Cause outside of itself; and considering the immensity of the universe, what a Cause that must be!

All three of these assumptions result in "a high proportion of true beliefs" in the uncontested situations where we know the situation by firsthand experience; that is, where we can prove whether the conclusion is true or false. Thus, they are "reliable" by the definition given.

Yes; below are three assumptions which are reliable, by the definition you quote, and which reasonably lead to belief in God:

1. Complex functional machines have a designer. This is the famous watchmaker analogy. Spaceships, watches, computers, and cars have designers; and if we found one such machine in a junkyard, we would know it wasn't made by a tornado! It is thus reasonable from experience to assume that biological machines have a Designer, too. Biology is full of micro-machinery which surpasses the complexity of amazing man-made machines. Even many evolutionists will admit that nature has a surprising level of apparent design. Thus they indirectly (and maybe sometimes, directly) admit that belief in a Designer is reasonable, even if they think it is wrong. But this logic is "reliable" by the definition given, because it results in an extremely high proportion of true beliefs in other areas.
2. Language implies an intelligent author. Everywhere we find genuine language, we infer authorship. If we read a large book or find a complex and coherent message scribbled in the sand, we know an intelligent mind was behind it. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the language of DNA has an intelligent Author; and considering the variety, unity, creativity, and mind-bending complexity of DNA--in everything from trees, to hummingbirds, to lions, to humans--it is reasonable to infer that this Author is God. Because this thought process works so well in areas other than DNA, it is "reliable" by the definition given.
3. All natural things and events have a cause. This also works so well in everyday life, and it is thus reliable. If we see a turtle on a fencepost, we know that there is a cause for it, and that the cause isn't the turtle's climbing ability! If we find the glass window broken in and valuables missing, we know that the cause was probably a burglar. Certain things may happen by complex and seemingly "random" precursor events, but we assume that every natural thing and event was caused by something adequate to the result. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the existence of the universe itself has a Cause outside of itself; and considering the immensity of the universe, what a Cause that must be!

All three of these assumptions result in "a high proportion of true beliefs" in the uncontested situations where we know the details by firsthand experience; that is, where we can prove whether the conclusions are true or false. Thus, they are "reliable" by the definition given.

Yes; here are three assumptions which are reliable, by the definition you quote, and which reasonably lead to belief in God:

1. Complex functional machines have a designer. This is the famous watchmaker analogy. Spaceships, watches, computers, and cars have designers; and if we found one such machine in a junkyard, we would know it wasn't a tornado that made it! It is thus reasonable from experience to assume that nature has a Designer, too. It is full of micro-machinery which surpasses the complexity of amazing man-made machines. Even many evolutionists will admit that nature has a surprising level of apparent design. Thus they indirectly (and maybe sometimes, directly) admit that belief in a Designer is reasonable, even if they think it is wrong. But the logic which leads to believing in a Designer for nature is reliable, since it results in an extremely high proportion of true beliefs in areas outside nature.
2. Language implies an intelligent author. Everywhere we find genuine language, we infer authorship. If we read a large book or find a complex and coherent message scribbled in the sand, we know an intelligent mind was behind it. Thus it is reasonable to infer that the language of DNA has an intelligent Author; and considering the variety, unity, creativity, and mind-bending complexity of DNA, it is reasonable to infer that this Author is God. The process leading to this conclusion works so well outside the area of DNA that it is reliable by the definition given.
3. All natural things and events have a cause. This also works so well in everyday life, and it is thus reliable. If we see a turtle on a fencepost, we know that there is a cause for it, and that the cause isn't the turtle's climbing ability! If we find the glass window broken in and valuables missing, we know that the cause was probably a burglar. Certain things may happen by complex and seemingly "random" precursor events, but we assume that every natural thing and event was caused by something adequate to the result. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the existence of the universe itself has a Cause outside of itself; and considering the immensity of the universe, what a Cause that must be!

All three of these assumptions result in "a high proportion of true beliefs" in the uncontested situations where we know the situation by firsthand experience; that is, where we can prove whether the conclusion is true or false. Thus, they are "reliable" by the definition given.

Yes; below are three assumptions which are reliable, by the definition you quote, and which reasonably lead to belief in God:

1. Complex functional machines have a designer. This is the famous watchmaker analogy. Spaceships, watches, computers, and cars have designers; and if we found one such machine in a junkyard, we would know it wasn't a tornado that made it! It is thus reasonable from experience to assume that nature has a Designer, too. It is full of micro-machinery which surpasses the complexity of amazing man-made machines. Even many evolutionists will admit that nature has a surprising level of apparent design. Thus they indirectly (and maybe sometimes, directly) admit that belief in a Designer is reasonable, even if they think it is wrong. But the logic which leads to believing in a Designer for nature is reliable, since it results in an extremely high proportion of true beliefs in other areas.
2. Language implies an intelligent author. Everywhere we find genuine language, we infer authorship. If we read a large book or find a complex and coherent message scribbled in the sand, we know an intelligent mind was behind it. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the language of DNA has an intelligent Author; and considering the variety, unity, creativity, and mind-bending complexity of DNA--in everything from trees, to hummingbirds, to lions, to humans--it is reasonable to infer that this Author is God. The process leading to this conclusion works so well outside the area of DNA that it is reliable by the definition given.
3. All natural things and events have a cause. This also works so well in everyday life, and it is thus reliable. If we see a turtle on a fencepost, we know that there is a cause for it, and that the cause isn't the turtle's climbing ability! If we find the glass window broken in and valuables missing, we know that the cause was probably a burglar. Certain things may happen by complex and seemingly "random" precursor events, but we assume that every natural thing and event was caused by something adequate to the result. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the existence of the universe itself has a Cause outside of itself; and considering the immensity of the universe, what a Cause that must be!

All three of these assumptions result in "a high proportion of true beliefs" in the uncontested situations where we know the situation by firsthand experience; that is, where we can prove whether the conclusion is true or false. Thus, they are "reliable" by the definition given.