That's exactly what I'm saying. I can't prove a negative -- the burden of proof is on the other party.
By your reasoning, being unable to prove a negative means that, outside of maybe math, facts don't really exist. I can't prove that WW2 wasn't an elaborate hoax, I can't prove that Texas is a real state, I can't prove that babies aren't brought around by very stealthy storks.
The point is, you already accept WW2 as factual -- or you certainly wouldn't object to someone presenting it as such on an internet forum -- despite it possibly being a shared worldwide hallucination, so you're not even being internally consistent.
The probability Texas is a real state is very different then the probability fraud caused Trump to lose the 2020 election.
You again are appealing to ridicule.
Once again, just to be clear, I'm not saying Trump won the 2020 election. Trump's claims he won for sure and "everyone knows it" are just as nonfactual and people who claim Trump actually won is a "fact" are also making preference based statements of faith, just as you and original poster are doing. Unless they have top secret proof they are not sharing which as you alluded to earlier, appears unlikely.
What I'm taking about is the nature of "absolute fact" and "probability" and stating things as certain facts that are not certain facts. Also assessing the possibility or probability of events occurring.
Here are statements I'd have no problem with:
"No conclusive evidence has been presented that fraud tipped the scales in the 2020 election"
"It appears extremely unlikely Trump actually won the 2020 election because the evidence thus far presented in court has not held up to scrutiny"
Here is a statement I do have a problem with:
"1/3 of people are so dumb they don't even believe the "fact" that the 2020 election was legitimate so XXX because facts don't matter to unwashed idiots" (which was the gist of the original post I took exception with).
You are imposing arbitrary and extreme standards for the usage of the term fact. These standards neither reflect real world usage, nor do they reflect any sensible first principle definition.
You also consistently conflate trust and faith. I have to trust a number of entities to come to the conclusion that this is a fact. Just like I have to trust a number of social entities to come to the conclusion that the existence of atoms is a fact. The point is that there are excellent reasons to trust these entities. Faith is trust without reason. That is _not_ at play here.
It's entirely within the realm of probability that an election was fraudulent enough to alter the outcome. That has happened in world history more then once.
On the other hand it's not within the realm of reasonable possibility that Texas doesn't actually exist.
These two scenarios are not comparable.
It very simply is not a "fact" that Joe Biden won the election cleanly (nor the converse). It might be most probable but it is not "fact" and there are people who feel the evidence points to a different conclusion then you have arrived at. Perhaps they are wrong but the issue here is one of "fact" and determining "fact" in this case is a very large search space. At most (right now) we can say what evidence we see and what we believe is most probable, not beat our opponents over the head for how stupid they are for not seeing "facts". (this was my whole point).
faith
/fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
You are right, Texas is not a good example here. I will give you another one instead:
September 18, 2006 light from a massive supernova reached earth. The star exploded in galaxy NGC 1260 238,000,000 light years away. This was the most energy intensive supernova ever recorded, and it's observation made it onto the Time magazine Top 10 scientific discoveries of the year.
This explosion is considered a scientific fact. You can not prove that this was not faked. I consider the likelihood that it was faked considerably higher than the likelihood that Trump won the election. Why? You would need to coordinate fewer people to fake it, and the people whom you would need to coordinate would be roughly neutral towards the outcome you are manufacturing. In contrast to tip the election without _any_ evidence of this subterfuge emerging you need to coordinate a lot more people, and many of those are actively working _against_ the outcome you are manufacturing.
I mean, i get where you are coming from: "Texas I can go and look at, microbes I can get a microscope and check myself, the electio I obviously can't!". Your problem is just that you stop thinking at this point. There just is more to it.
Either way, it's abundantly clear that the reason that 30% of the US believe the election was tipped has nothing to do with these philosophical points you raise. The election was not any more or less secure than the last couple of dozen that people by and large accepted. The only thing that changed is that Trump, for personal gain, actively undermined the trust in institutions specifically engineered to make cheating hard and to certify results.
But I suspect you probably know that on some level already.
You can assert probabilities but you can't prove a negative.
Appeal to ridicule doesn't change that.