virus: Logic and Purpose

Reed Konsler (
Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:16:17 +0100

>Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:40:52 -0700
>From: David McFadzean <>
>At 07:53 PM 10/26/97 -0000, Robin Faichney wrote:
>>> From: David McFadzean[]
>> ...And the V.P. was enlightened.
>>Great story! What's the message?
>Reed is defending faith by defining it such that faith in
>a god is not different in kind from a scientist's logical
>assumptions, even when the latter is based on evidence.
>I hope my story illustrates the invalidity of that sort of

I'm afraid I don't get it.
Could you define "logical assumption" for me?

My dictionary says this about "assumption":
1) The act of assuming
2) A statement accepted or supposed true without proof or demonstration
3) Presumption or arrogance
4) (Logic) A minor premise

When you say "logical assumption" do you mean 4) "a minor

To add to the list of definintions let's add:

A statement accepted or supposed true without proof or demonstration.

All assumptions are unrational.
If an assumption is rationalized, it ceases to be an assumption.
It is not possible to make a rational argument without assumptions.
In any rational argument, it is not possible to rationalize all assumptions.

Therefore all rational arguments contain assumptions.

In other words:

Logical arguments are based on faith.

QED. :-)


Reed Konsler