Well, you're wrong. And arrogant, too. Not a happy combination.
One doesn't prove it "does not exist" which is why the Burden of Proof in logic and science is upon the person making the Assertion.
Fine. Then prove the statement "you can't prove a negative."
If you can prove this statement, then you will have proved a negative, and thus invalidated your original claim. If you cannot prove your statement, then it is logically meaningless, and we need not be bound by it.
I'll be interested to see your proof.
Sorry you're unhappy. Go cry in your beer.
If you can prove this statement, then you will have proved a negative, and thus invalidated your original claim. If you cannot prove your statement, then it is logically meaningless, and we need not be bound by it
Been there, done that, for like the upteenth time.
How can a put this that even a nitwit like you can understand?
Proving a "statement" negative and proving an "assertion about reality" negative - are two, completely different things. It is easy to prove a negative abstraction invalid by the very definition of the terms. It is not possible to prove an assertion about reality wrong because there is no evidence to prove it right or wrong, by definition.
I understand you aren't intelligent enough to understand the difference but that isn't my problem, it is YOURS!!!
While your at it, have another beer on me and cry in that too.