We? Are you trying to include yourself into a group that you hourly put down in such a fashion that deserves a broken nose at the minimum. . . . . .? Pity.
Get over yourself and your use of the “Queen’s” WE. . . . . .
I’ll take that to mean we do not have anything concrete to back this up. Not surprised considering the make-up of this thread.
Carry on.
Do you have a source that can verify this to be false? No, I didn't think so.
the burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X.
And I contend that is upside down. I make a claim, you can question it all you like, but without factual rebuttal, you can't factually question it.
You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
You cannot claim that "souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
You cannot claim that "angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
The Burden of Proof as presented above applies to claims that are cognitive and empirical. The principle applies to claims about what exists or does not exist.
This is your claim?
Last edited by steve4102; 12/29/20.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
