Draper, P. (2010). Cumulative Cases. In C. Taliaferro, P. Paul Draper, & P. Quinn (Eds.), Ch. 49. A Companion to Philosophy of Religion (2nd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Naturalistic vs Supernatural Explanations: “Charting” a Course away from a Belief in God by Utilizing Inference to the Best Explanation

  AUTHORS: Randall S. Firestone

  KEYWORDS: God, Religion, Inference to the Best Explanation, Arguments for God, Problems with Arguments for God, Naturalistic Explanations, Supernatural Explanations, Philosophy of Religion, Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, Fine-Tuning Argument, Reliability of Scripture, Miracles, Religious Experience, Ontological Argument

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Philosophy, Vol.4 No.3, August 6, 2014

  ABSTRACT: The article critiques the seven major arguments supporting a belief in God. The arguments are presented as Inferences to the Best Explanation with the use of charts. The charts graphically demonstrate that naturalistic explanations are being ignored by the theist, who favors inherently unverifiable supernatural explanations over naturalistic ones. The paper also discusses why metaphysical beliefs should not be trusted, and how such beliefs differ from scientific beliefs. The paper concludes that the arguments for the existence of God fail because the naturalistic explanations are the best explanations and should be accepted over the supernatural explanation of God. To the extent that the charting of all seven arguments is new, it should be a helpful explanatory tool, especially for students.