Abstract
Richard Swinburne has certainly carved a niche for himself in contemporary philosophy of religion through his rigorous and indefatigable defence of theism. A signature novelty of Swinburne’s enterprise is his cumulative approach in demonstrating the existence of God. His principal concern is whether the different inductive arguments for the existence of God cumulatively make it more probable than not that God exists; in other words, whether the cumulative force of the evidence in favour of God’s existence outweighs the evidence against the existence of God. The objective of this essay is to critically examine Swinburne’s approach. Rationally scrutinizing his claims, it acknowledges the undeniable merits of his endeavour, and at the same time exposes some of the unresolved difficulties Swinburne’s approach still poses to the critical mind.