Your premise is an attempt to prove non-contradiction.
No, my premise is used to prove this negative claim:
The Earth is not flat.
Actually this was the premise...
It is not true that the Earth is both round and flat.
This is you stating that something cannot be contradictory things.
Uh-huh, that's a premise. But the premise isn't the thing that is being proven. The
conclusion is the thing being proven, and the
conclusion is a negative claim. Since we agree that the Earth cannot be round and flat,
and we agree that the Earth is round, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. Ergo, the negative claim:
The Earth is not flat.
Is proven true. Again, the very basics of deductive logic escape you. It's a two premise argument and you can't comprehend that well enough to even follow along with what is being proven.
And I'm being really generous here....if I wanted to be a jerk about it I'd point out that when you fail to make the claim about the existence of the subject, and instead choose to just describe qualitative aspects of it, you risk running into a semantic argument.
For example....
The Earth is not perfectly round and as an oblate spheroid, is characterized by a degree of flatness, ergo....the Earth is both flat and round.
Without a clearly delineated threshold for when roundness becomes flatness this is a valid semantic argument.
This is me dunking on you from the top of the key lol.
If you wanted to make a semantic argument
now, you would have to flip flop on agreeing to my first premise. So no dunking. Just you flailing around helplessly trying to avoid losing the point you lost pages ago.
If you bothered to read the part you aren't highlighting....and try really really hard to think about it....and realize that neither of those apply to your claims....
lulz, you still think your position holds water after reading that from
your source?
First of all, it is literally telling you to fulfill your burden of proving a negative, whereas you claim there is no burden of proof for negative claims.
Second, it tells you two methods of proving a negative, whereas you claimed it is impossible to prove a negative claim.
Third, both methods are methods I used in the plethora of examples where I proved a negative. In the most recent posts I proved a negative by proving it is impossible for the Earth to be flat because it is round.
In my first post of explaining this very basic concept to you, I claimed I would prove a negative in three sentences:
The next sentence I write will not contain the letter 'q'.
Oops, I did it in two.
Which is an absence of evidence proof.
Even if I failed to provide a proof, which I did not, your own source tells you that you're wrong on all counts, and you're still blathering nonsense at me. Your inability to acknowledge mistakes is positively pathological.
And then understand you're still failing to make a negative claim lol.
The Earth is not flat. That's the claim. That claim is negative. That claim has been proven. Learn to read.
You're not even good at logic.
lol This from the guy that doesn't know the difference between a 'premise' and a 'conclusion'. lol
I do remember that you don't know what makes an argument valid or how to write one, yep. Your best effort was something like this:
P1 I believe X
P2 I believe Y
P3 I believe Z
C I believe A
Yep. Not valid. Though you insisted repeatedly that it was. A list of beliefs isn't an argument. And since you don't know what makes an argument valid, you aren't fit to attempt to refute mine.
No reason?
I don't see a lot done without a reason.
Yeah, no reason. You're claiming that I did the reporting, and your evidence is my impeccable track record of never reporting posts ever in the past. Only an idiot interprets evidence like that.
Detective Bill: Golly! I wonder who murdered all of these people!
Detective Bob: I bet it was that little old lady who has never had so much as a parking ticket in her entire life!
Detective Bill: You're a moron, Bob.
Now, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that all the nonsense you've been writing since my list of examples of proving negatives is valid and coherent. You must have made the claim, "Orel did
NOT prove a negative" and then you would have proved it. If you succeed, then you prove me right. There is no winning here for you. The idea that "a negative claim cannot be proven" is me, Todd, Ed.
