Incredulous Logic

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I think your reading too much into "my inductive beliefs". There are many laws that I find difficult to grasp, indeed counter-intuitive. I leverage the things that are based upon these laws because they work. That's really the end of it for me. If you have a theory, I'm going to ask for evidence. If you, for example, where to say that the laws of physics have changed post flood. I would ask for evidence. There is currently a great deal of evidence that the laws of physics have not changed for as far back as we can look. If satellites fall out of the sky tomorrow perhaps your question would mean something to me, but until you provide evidence it does not. If we run an experiment today, that codifed a natural law, and the results were different, we would have to address that wouldn't we?

---

Well at least I have managed to get what somewhat resembles a response to my question out of you, so I thank you for that. However, just saying, “I assume it because it works” is begging the question because it banks on the premise “What has worked in the past will continue to work in the future.” This of course is the very belief you are trying to justify. You are free to believe the forces that uphold creation in the future will resemble the ones observed in the past, but you believe this despite the fact there is no evidence or proof you can use to justify this belief.