A320 Captain reported a refusal to accept an aircraft with excessive MEL's. The aircraft was scheduled to fly in an area of convective weather and arrive at dusk. In the interest safety the aircraft was refused.

Narrative

I refused [the] aircraft due to excessive MEL's that negatively affected flight safety being Dispatched into convective weather and rain with possible low ceilings at destination. Flight was dispatched away from a maintenance base with 6 MEL's of which when all tallied up affected multiple aircraft systems both on the ground and in flight. Notable systems were; loss of thrust reverser; loss of predictive Windshear; loss of auto start protections requiring manual start; loss of avionics bay cooling functions; loss of all nose gear lights(expected arrival time would have been dark or near dark) and loss of brake cooling among many others. Also it set the airplane up for a single point failure (failure of lcgiu1) for a complete loss of autopilot and flight director function in addition to the above. There is no good reason to send an aircraft in that condition with a full passenger load out of a heavy maintenance base into the weather conditions that were present at the time of scheduled departure. MEL's that were applied to aircraft were. XX-XX; XX-XXg; XX-XXb; XX-XXb; XX-XXa; and XX-XX.Causal factor is flight operations and maintenance failure to consider the excessive work load and backup system loss that resulted from this MEL combination being Dispatched into potentially heavy weather arriving at night. In addition the failure to consider the consequences of having another failure in flight with so many systems already degraded or inoperative. My suggestion is when these decisions are being made for the decision maker to ask themselves 'would I want my family on that airplane'. In the case of this aircraft; my bet their answer would be a definite no.