M. L. Mayaan-Baruch's Argument Diagram of Inference: Justifying and Mapping Belief (Part I)

Posted Tuesday 10. March, 2026

Category: Philosophy & Theology  ✷  ▼ Download (.md) ✷  Substack Version

◄ BACK TO BLOG

Life can be described as a journey towards the sacred -- Olli Valtonen (Mirror of the Soul, 1997)

I have always been interested in knowing why I believe what I believe.

Unquestioned belief has always seemed dishonest to me, both toward one's own intellectual capacities and, if belief is meant to be shared, toward those one seeks to influence. Especially among my Christian brothers and sisters, I have often found a deeper analysis of belief to be unnecessary to them, making belief a phenomenon based purely on feeling. Feeling is insufficient for me when it comes to belief -- I can believe in God without a profound spiritual manifestation or experience -- and consider feeling to be a byproduct of justified faith.

As such, I have wanted to construct an argument diagram for a long time, before I even knew what an argument diagram was. Whenever I have been asked in the past why I believe in God, I have always started off the same way -- not by appealing to the self-evident love of God that seems obvious to me, but not, for example, to an atheist, but by asking basic and fundamental questions.

This question, however, must be carried by the axiom that we are epistemologically capable of considering this question. Therefore, everything in my Argument Diagram of Inference is based on the axiom that humanity is sufficiently capable of accurately analyzing its own existence.

In this diagram, I have chosen to categorize concepts into;

• AXIOMS -- Taken as absolute fact, even without sufficient evidence
• EVIDENTIAL ARGUMENTS -- Concrete evidence, scientific or circumstantial (i.e. the Big Bang theory)
• INFERENCES -- Conclusions drawn by compounding Evidential Arguments
• CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH -- Concepts, texts of assumptions which claim to be truthful (i.e. the Qur'an)

This diagram does not take into account the arguments against the inferences, as this is not the purpose of the diagram. Ideally, each item on the diagram is worthy of its own critique once its been established. It is full of assumptions, some hasty, and ideas that are not necessarily all the way thought out -- putting them down, in writing, should help the creator of the diagram flush out, test, and justify his beliefs.

Consideration 1: Does God exist?

A simple, but ultimately unprovable question -- at least unprovable by us. Every time we peel back another layer of understanding the universe, we end up more confused than before -- look at the Big Bang theory, quantum physics, the expanse of the universe. Knowledge expands the boundary of the unknown faster than it eliminates it.

Accepting that this simple notion can not be observed under the current criteria set by science, we must rely on assumptions, observations, and abstractions in order to make a qualified judgement. Can we prove that God exists? No. But we can infer it.

1. The Kalam cosmological argument

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Revived by William Lane Craig, I have not personally found the existing critiques of this basic argument to be persuasive. It seems almost self-evident that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and that the universe encompasses "everything," except the causeless.

2. Aristotle's unmoved mover and Aquinas' Five Ways

Things in the world are in motion, something can only be caused to move by a mover, therefore everything in the world must be moved by an unmoved mover.

First conceived by Aristotle, and later expanded on by Thomas Aquinas in his Five Ways arguments, the concept of an unmoved mover, a causeless cause, a thing beyond the universe, expands upon the Kalam argument by providing a singular source beyond what we consider "everything".

3. The Watchmaker argument

If you find a watch in a field, you infer it was designed, not formed by chance. Similarly, nature's complexity (e.g., the human eye) implies a Designer.

Conceived by William Paley, this argument is often criticized. Any complex system will inevitably consist of smaller, less complex systems working together, giving the appearance of impossible complexity -- I personally fail to see how this disproves the argument.

Even if complex systems consist of non-complex, or less complex systems, the combination and integration of these systems will automatically result in complexity, therefore an overarching natural force must dictate this complexity.

4. The fine-tuned universe

It's as if there are a large number of dials that have to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits for life to be possible in our universe. It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen if there is such a person as God. ---  Alvin Plantinga, "The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum"

Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Alister McGrath and other theistic philosophers have pointed to the extremely fine-tuned universe as evidence of intelligent design. The Triple-Alpha process is often cited as an example of a fine-tuned universe, describing the process of how stars fuse helium nuclei to create carbon atoms.

5. Unified and universal order

Assuming the existence of the unmoved mover, it would be logical to conclude that this mover has a singular will, or a unified order, as the universe is dictated by observable and consistent physical laws that can be replicated, measured and tested.

Science assumes that the laws of nature are consistent and reproducible, meaning that experiments performed under the same conditions should produce the same results. When certain chemicals are mixed a certain way, under the same conditions, the same results occur. Science relies on reproducibility, and mathematics provides a consistent language through which we understand the laws of nature.

This would, in my opinion, exclude most interpretations of God as several beings with distinct wills and powers, or at least imply a henotheistic system with one overarching, omnipotent being as superior.

Assuming these arguments as being correct, one can make a few leaps;

• The universe began to exist and has a cause
• An unmoved mover is the explanation of existence
• Complexity implies intelligence
• The unmoved mover has one will and is unified

Inference 1: The Universe was created through will by a singular intelligent designer

Consideration 2: Does God want us to know about God?

We can infer the existence of a god, but must now consider the nature of this being. Most importantly, in my opinion -- does this being want us to know about it, or does it not want us to intervene in its affairs.

If the answer is no, we have the Deus otiosus of Deism, the rejection of a "personal" god, or the reliance on prophecy and revelation (from humans) for divine knowledge.

The Deus otiosus is sometimes likened to the Catholic concept of Deus absconditus, which posits that God is ultimately unknowable to humans. A "hidden" god and a non-active god are, in my opinion, two very different things. Human beings are, by their very nature, limited, and can never fully grasp omnipotence without also experincing it. The Deus absconditus could then be a personal god, capable and willing to impart knowledge to humans, and let the rest remain in holy mystery.

If the answer is yes, we can expand upon that.

1. Knowledge of human curiosity

A creator who has willed the existence of humans must also be aware of the human desire to know about their existence.

If the unmoved mover is capable of moving, one must assume omnipotence, and the voluntary creation of the Universe. This being the case, the Creator must also be aware of our desire to know about our own existence and the nature of God. In short, why would God create us to not interact with us?

We can infer, on the same basis we used to infer the existence of God, that the Universe is, to some extend, benevolent -- or at least free. Human beings can, by and large, thrive and experience happiness, love, fulfilment and joy. Benevolence should not be understood as pure, unbridled bliss -- freedom is a form of benevolence, even when freedom carries with it the possibility of evil.

Infering then that we can observe free will and benevolence, a creator willing to create, but then leave creation alone and without guidance, is no better than a kid with an ant farm. While we can never fully prove or disprove a personal God, the concept of an absent God seems, personally, to be enormously cruel and unjust. Therefore, infering that a cruel God would not create us with the possibility of feeling joy, love, happiness and fulfilment, an active, personal God remains the best option.

Inference 2: God is a personal God, or at least wants us to be aware of them

Consideration 3: How will God reveal themself?

We can infer that God is a personal God, or at least wants us to be aware of their existence. Now we need to account for how God will let us know of their existence.

1. Ease of access

Since God wants us to know about them, their expressions would not be hidden away in some obscure, unknown scripture, but readily available.

God could conceivably be present in physical form and become visible to everyone, or they could reveal their divine plan through human beings. A written account of prophecy can be preserved, shared, and studied freely, and so provides an excellent way of sharing divine will in a way that is conceivable for humans.

This is essentially the basis of Abrahamic religions, which roughly 47-56% of the world's population adhere to -- that some human beings attain prophethood and are able to communicate God's will.

Inference 3: God's will is readily available for humanity, and is clearly expressed and preserved

In part 2, I will account for the 3 next considerations;

• Consideration 4: Which revelations claiming divine authorship are correct?
• Consideration 5: Do the Holy Scriptures account for the four previous considerations?
• Consideration 6: How do we interpret the Holy Scriptures properly?

MARANATHA

M. L. Mayaan-Baruch

Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-SA-4.0) - You are free to share and adapt the works in this blog, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.