Contrary to what that babbling bible says about lions, the
king of the jungle is no puppet of some invisible Incompetent Designer (who, it is rumored, calls himself king as well):
A MAN shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on today.
"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.
"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."
Guess
He it doesn't exist. What's that I hear the from the Xians? That mister lion food above was tempting the Lord? That we cannot test Big Daddy? That it was SkyCop's will that he get killed? Really now? And what and where might the evidence for these claims (ad hoc rationalizations) be?
(via
God is for Suckers)
2 comments:
This one experiment proves nothing. I'll need to see some replications before I believe it.
(Is my 12% evil showing?)
This just hit me tonight. The man's intended argument is in the form known as affirming the consequent:
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
If God exists then he will be saved from the lions.
He was saved.
Therefore, God exists.
Unfortunately, that's a logically fallacious argument. If Q occurs then it does not necessarily imply that P was the cause. If the man survived, it does not necessarily mean that supernatural phenomenon was the cause.
More interestingly, what actually transpired is in the form known as denying the consequent:
If P then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.
If God exists then he will be saved from the lions.
He wasn't.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Denying the consequent is always a valid argument
Post a Comment