Does absence of belief equate to belief of absence?
Let’s say Jimmy doesn’t hold the belief that Johnny owns a cat. Does it therefore follow that Jimmy does hold the belief the Johnny does not own a cat? Would or wouldn’t the answer to this be dependent on whether or not Jimmy has ever thought about whether or not Johnny owns a cat?
Would this play out any differently if we were talking about the existence of something?
Let’s say Johnny doesn’t hold the belief that there are thousands of volcanoes on the planet Neptune. Does it therefore follow that Johnny does hold the belief that there are not thousands of volcanoes on the planet Neptune?
And to simplify this:
Let’s say Jimmy doesn’t hold the belief that the god Zeus exists. Does it therefore follow that Jimmy does hold the belief that the god Zeus does not exist? Would or wouldn’t the answer to this be dependent on whether or not Jimmy has ever been introduced to the concept of the god Zeus?
This might be a little convoluted As an example, a scientist will necessarily have an absence of belief insofar as the existence of a particular new planet - until he finally discovers it by viewing it from his telescope and confirms it. But that does not mean that before he discovers it, he believes in the absence of that planet.
The only way in which those two statements would erroneously equate would be within the mind of one who could not see possibilities and was not able to withhold judgment before proof. We can’t believe (perhaps intuitive knowledge) or know a thing until we see it but that doesn’t mean that it is not there. A scientific mind knows this.
I was never that good with logic but I’m working on it.
As an example, a scientist will necessarily have an