What lore do you ignore?

[ZavosEsperian]

No, the burden of proof is yours.

See my previous post. Everything I stated is logically sound in terms of how logic is understood around the globe (if there are any faults in my logic, you are free to point them out and I will admit to it). My argument and your are fundamentally different, and as far as the burden of proof is concerned, mine is already met for the type of argument I made, which is existential. The type of statement you made is universal and has a higher burden of proof than an existential statement. If you cannot show your statement is universally true, you have failed to make a logical argument and thus the argument should be disregarded. An example of a failed universal proof looks like this:

I'm just pointing out a few obviously non-viable routes that constrain the type of solutions that you can come up with.

Proof by example is a logical fallacy whereby the validity of a statement is illustrated through one or more examples or cases and, as such, is unable to be used as proof for a universal statement

The divergence possibility cannot be ruled out because you want to ignore the existence of the timeline G'raha originated from and its continued existence, which goes against arguments you hold everyone else up to. I will remind you again what your previous statement was paired with what the writers' think on this issue:

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

and here is what the writers say about this issue:

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. Can you explain what happened?

A: First of all, we’ve left that part up to interpretation.

-Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII (03/03/2022)

As far as Hermes is concerned, I have already stated neither of us have any way to prove our arguments as true, nor have I ever taken a stance where I am personally invested in proving this point true for headcanon reasons. You are free to assume what I believe in terms of the story, but you cannot deny the logic of the argument. From a logical standpoint, the burden of proof is higher on universal statements than it is on existential statements due to the nature of the two statement types. No amount of arguing will ever change this fact. As such, you have no way to prove what Hermes would do outside of conjecture, which is not sufficient to prove a universal statement true. Similarly, I have no way to prove Hermes' involvement either because there does not exist a case to prove me true. As such, it is pointless to keep doing this unless you are enjoying learning about logical proofing for our arguments here, in which case I do not mind continuing to show you how to argue using logical statements.

In any case, there is one true universal statement you have made in your posts on the subject from all viewpoints based on the circumstances:

The fact that we reached an ending where humanity survived at all was, in all likelihood, a lot of blind luck in dodging the multitude of bad ends.