In logic, it is the combination of both the inverse and converse, switching the subject and predicate of a sentence and negating both--such as:
If I walk outside in the morning, then I whistle. → contrapositive is → If I am not whistling, then I am not walking outside in the morning.
All planes are vehicles. → contrapositive is → All non-vehicles are not planes.
In logic, it is the switching of the subject and predicate of a sentence to create a semi-negated structure, such as:
If it is raining outside, then I am moody. → converse is → If I am moody, then it is raining outside.
All geckos are lizards. → converse is → All lizards are geckos.
Material giving credence and weight to a stipulated proposition, lending support and bearing. Not all evidence is equal in support and results in some evidence being called "weak" and others "strong" -- and some evidence will not be convincing at all in some jurisdictions or to some detractors.
Belief in something without sufficient reason.
If you had sufficient reason, it would no longer be called "faith", but you'd say "I have reason to believe X."
In logic, it is the negating of the subject and predicate of a sentence to create a semi-negated structure, such as:
The reason we can accept this definition, is because as soon as we have reasons or proof, we no longer use the word faith. We say, "I have reason or evidence to think/believe..."
All women who are doctors are smart. → inverse is → All women who are not doctors are not smart.
The Latin phrase "non est deus" literally means "not is god" or rearranged so it is actually meaningful in English, "god is not." This phrase has been picked because it accurately describes the position an atheist holds--that an atheist can justifiably claim "There is no god." This is not the same as a logical claim that there are no gods. Such a position cannot be proven (one cannot prove things do not exist without omniscient knowledge). See post 22
This is the Latin phrase, "after this, therefore because of this" referring to the logical fallacy of assuming because thing B followed thing A, therefore thing A must have caused thing B. An example:
My dog barks right before my neighbor pulls into my driveway. Therefore, my dog barking causes my neighbor to pull into my driveway.
Another more subtle example:
The last three soccer games I won, and I drank an energy drink right before each of them. Therefore, drinking an energy drink before my next soccer game will allow me to win.
Forming hypotheses that correlate to and explain phenomenon and make predictions based on those hypotheses; using experiment(s) to test and observe the outcome of such predictions; revising, expanding or rewriting hypotheses if the experiment(s) fails to confirm, or accepting it as a sound theory if the experiment(s) does confirm.