It proves that God does not exist! This has been the argument used by the religious to defend the existence of God. “Since you cannot prove that there is no God, then I say that it exists. In addition, as they agreed with power, language was also subjected to this thought, calling oneself – without god – to those who opposed, rather than accepting that they were cum-teing. They were completely reassured, because the atheists, who burned them, believed themselves as owners of the truth.

This misleading argument is called “ad ignorantiam” fallacy and is a concept easily captured by high school students, because it is easy to demonstrate, that you can affirm anything, accept the existence of anything, arguing that you cannot deny the opposite.

And the answer is clear, I do not need to prove that any god – or anything else – but that you have to prove that it exists, but for that you cannot use the undemonstrability of the opposite.

Going down to practical situations, if the use of this argument has legal concreteness, presumption of innocence or what is called. This is based on the fact that nobody has to prove that they have not done what is being accused of, while the accuser has to prove what is being attributed to someone.

Last week, in the judgment of the Bateragune case, the prosecutor who supports the state, to confirm that Arnaldo and the others were under the tutelage of ETA, stated – in Spanish, of course – that “there are no documents, no data, that say that ETA is not in the political operation that they have organised”. And he was very quiet when he said it (but not the others, who are in jail), convinced of the truth.

As you can assure that this prosecutor has done high school, I think there are two reasons to play in this awkward way: or he has not been able to prove what was imputed to him (and this has been evidenced by lawyers), and therefore, incapable, he has resorted to fallacy or, worse still, he has not seen what was imputed to him, and he has used the fallacy to comply with an absurd and unintended purpose.

One or the other is the reason for the serious perversity of the conduct of this prosecutor. If this is not prevarication, then what is it? (“The crime is that the law-related personnel, by malice, are adequately denied or in breach of the requirements of their position,” says Harluxet).

Let's see if they're all released, it's time.