Regardless of what 'it' is, neither statement is valid. Both are based on the fallacy that the inability to prove something constitutes proof of its opposite. In actuality, proof of either requires the same rigor, and if neither has been achieved, it is 'neither proven nor disproven'.
Regardless of what 'it' is, neither statement is valid. Both are based on the fallacy that the inability to prove something constitutes proof of its opposite. In actuality, proof of either requires the same rigor, and if neither has been achieved, it is 'neither proven nor disproven'.