Well, I see that Bill Wiltrack has the answer to everything !
-Uwot,
First of all, I begin with one of your last answer:
When I wrote Negative AND Opposite, this is because I don't have the terme of the equivalent proposition in english. In french, it is said:
contraposée.
To schematize it for you, here it is:
Original Proposition P0: A⇒B.
As you very well told, obviously, this is
not equivalent to "(Non-A)⇒(Non-B)", which would only be the negation of original proposition. To say this would effectively be fallacious, because it would be as saying: "True=False", that's clear.
(Symbolically, "Non-" is written so: ¬ .)
-What I meant, is:
The equivalent proposition to P0 - let me call it P1 - is:
¬B⇒¬A .
And that's all !
This is often a forgotten equivalence, and I think it is good to recall it.
------------------------------------------------------------
But as I am corresponding with you, and you don't think "If not see, then not belief",
I cannot infer upon it in "If belief, then see".
-Okay, let me answer now the other points:
Uwot wrote:
Well yes, there is a school of thought amongst some believers that it is faith that god wishes rather than knowledge. It usually gets tied in with free will; the reasoning being that if we knew god exists, we would automatically behave according to his will (it didn't work for Lucifer).
NielsBohr wrote:
To give you a schematic thought: To see him could cause a big fear, making people go away as some atheists themselves...
Let me get this right: proof of god would cause some people to stop believing in him?
-I do not want to make a generality, but as you can see for the devil you evoke, the proof won't necessarily make people follow God.
Uwot wrote:
From my point of view, as an atheist, you, as a theist, are someone who has a record of believing in things you cannot see.
-Thank you to have the honesty to declare to be atheist - this was actually not obvious for me to see atheism in you.
As I read you, it nevertheless appears to me as clear, that you did not thought "Not see ⇒ Not believe", so I deduce that our have a higher level of abstraction than other atheists, and I thank you for this.
Uwot wrote:
Two questions:
1. What do you think I have faith on?
2. What has that to do with faith in god?
I will answer the second point later, if you let me so, but at the moment, I admit that there are two kind of believes, knowing "to believe simple "facts"" (to be schematic), and to believe in God.
Okay, I will take this point later.
For the first, to be honest, I am not a genius: I cannot guess what is in your mental ! This would be rather to you to tell me what is your notion of faith (if you have ever one)...
Uwot wrote:
NielsBohr wrote:
The reason beyond being that they cannot prove more why they have sometime faith in others than God, as they cannot prove all in general.
I'm afraid I don't understand this.
Okay,
as you bound your reasoning about "God proving himself" (to be brief - one of the first of your points) to "free will", what is not necessary,
let me explain myself:
Most of time, a philosophical atheism is bounded to materialist determinism. So, as you cannot know all the previous causes, you are forced - I think - to invoke some faith... Or do I make a mistake ?
-Finally, I am not sure to understand a point:
It's very simple: it's the belief that none of the evidence for the existence for god is compelling.
If compelling is a synonym for constraint, it would say that if there was an evidence of God, your atheism would then consist in the deny of His law ?
