God Part N....

[Soulforged]

No proof is the proof, Soulforged. Think about it.

What fails is the object of the proof, because it's negative, not the proof itself. Proof X prooves Y, wich might be an indication that Z (allegated entity) doesn't exist, ie belongs to reality. So the silogism is: Y -> Z, but saying no Y -> no Z is a logical fallacy, pretty simple, because if this prooves fails it doesn't mean that there cannot be another evidence that Z exists. That's what I'm trying to say.

Edit: Spelling and sintaxis.