Search Our Site
Atheism vs. Theism
Is God a White Crow?
"Atheism/Theism" vs. "Science, the Bible, & Creation"
Introduction and Charges
1, Deduction and Induction
2, Question 1
2, Questions 2 and 3
2, Summary and Question 4
3 and 4, Definitions
Acting as Mechanisms, Article 1
Acting as Mechanisms, Article 2
Acting as Mechanisms, Article 3
Razor and Conclusions
2 and 3
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 1
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 2
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 3
Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 4
Life on Earth Imported from Outer Space
Circle of Reasons
God a White Crow?
The metaphor of crows will often be described as an illustration
to the limitations of induction. Every crow we have seen is
black. We might ask, "Are all crows black?" Based upon the
fact that every individual instance of a crow that we observe
involves a black crow, we would have to induce that as a rule,
all crows are black. However, just one white crow would disprove
that rule. Now, we cannot simply assume the existence of white
crows, so we must maintain our conclusion that all crows are
black until or unless a white crow is observed.
In this example, the white crow represents something new and
unknown. We have no reason to suspect that a white crow exists
since we've never seen one. So, the question arises, "Is God
a white crow?" Does concluding God exists mean we are supposing
something new and unknown?
In reality, when Theists conclude that God exists, they are
not hypothesizing something that is new and unknown to us.
All of the qualities found in the fundamental definition of
God are traits we know exist.
First, God is said to be eternal. It is patently illogical
to think that something came from nothing. Therefore, since
something exists now, it cannot be said that there was a time
when nothing existed. And anything that had a beginning would
need a cause. If nothing is eternal then we arrive at the
logical fallacy of infinite regress, which is a fallacy precisely
because, by definition it lacks a sufficient explanation.
The only way to avoid infinite regress is to have a cause
that had no beginning and so, requires no cause of its own.
Because such a cause would have no beginning, it would be
eternal. So, the existence of an eternal cause is a logical
necessity for explaining the existence of the universe. Furthermore,
Occam's Razor would prohibit us from multiplying causes endlessly
when a singular cause would suffice, and a single cause does
suffice as an explanation if that single cause is eternal.
But an endless series of causes is, by definition, not sufficient
to explain the universe's existence, no matter how many non-eternal
causes it contains.
Therefore, we know as a matter of logical necessity that something
Second, we know that intelligence exists. There are many fields
of science and industry, which deal with detecting intelligent
agency. Forensic medicine, cryptography, archeology, psychology,
some aspects of zoology, intellectual property law, and even
insurance claim investigation - just to name a few. Besides
these things, while degree of intelligence may vary from person
to person, we can look at our fellow human beings and discern
the difference between a human mind and a rock, a snail, or
even a computer.
Therefore, we know intelligence exists and we know that the
universe must have been caused by something eternal that exists
outside itself. As we have stated early on in our proof, anything
that exists outside our universe would be unavailable for
direct empirical observation. Thus, we also know that there
exists a cause for our universe, which is unavailable to our
So, when Theists conclude that God exists, they are not proposing
some new concept that we have never seen or do not know exists.
Rather, Theists are combining into one concept things we already
know exist. We know from logic that an eternal cause (for
the universe) exists. Since such a cause is outside the universe,
we also know that something exists, which we cannot directly
empirically observe (except through its effects). And, we
know from logic that there exists such a thing as intelligence.
Theists simply combine these three known concepts to arrive
at the existence of an eternal cause that is intelligent and
that we cannot directly detect since it exists outside our
universe. Therefore, we see that by concluding God exists,
Theists are not really assuming anything that we do not already
know either from logic or empirical experience.
The question is whether or not the concept of intelligence
necessarily needs to be applied to the other two logically
known concepts (1. an eternal cause 2. that we cannot directly
empirically observe.) To support the necessity of combining
these 3 concepts, we have offered at least one proof, the
proof outlined in our main series of article in this section.
We believe that until or unless scientists can identify the
mechanism, which causes basic molecules to assemble and reproduce
themselves as a living cell, the only mechanism we have seen
capable of engineering such an accomplishment is the intelligent
agency of the scientists themselves working in the lab toward
the creation of a living cell from non-living material.
Everything in the universe must be explained as an effect
either of the First Cause directly or of some intermediate
cause. An intermediate cause is a cause that exists somewhere
in series of causes between the First Cause and a particular
effect. If we can identify no intermediate cause for a particular
effect, then we must assume that effect was caused by the
First Cause itself.
If the First Cause is not intelligent, then everything in
the universe would be explainable by unintelligent causes.
In order to justify the conclusion that the First Cause is
intelligent, all that is necessary is to demonstrate some
aspect of the universe for which there exists no identifiable
unintelligent intermediate cause. Thus, there exists no identifiable
explanatory mechanism for the existence of life in the universe
other than intelligent agency we must associate intelligence
with the First Cause, (the eternal cause that we cannot directly
Thus, since the concept of God only includes concepts that
are already known to be true, we cannot say that concluding
God exists requires us to suppose something new and unknown.
In reality, the concept of God is not a white crow, but a
collection of black crows. The definition of God is merely
a combination of things we already know exist.