@abge,"
Because I don't believe in something until I'm shown evidence for it. There is no evidence for the universe not being in steady-state, so why should I think otherwise? Perhaps my view is wrong, but at least it is consistent."

But there's no evidence FOR it, either. There's no evidence about tomorrow one way or the other. So you DO believe things without evidence. That's the point.

The whole CONCEPT of evidence ASSUMES the regularity of the universe, but there is no evidence _for_ that. Only for the past regularity, the regularity so far.

Do a thought experiment for me. Imagine two possible universes. One of them, U1, is always regular, all the laws of physics keep being obeyed forever, etc., and its history up to now is exactly like the history of ours.

Another of them, U2, is regular up to now, and with the same history as ours (and as U1), but day after tomorrow, it goes wild. 10% of electrons become neutral, and then, cars start turning into unicorns.

What evidence is there that we're in one or the other of these? None. They're both identical up to now, so no evidence could distinguish them.

You might say, "Well, you have no evidence that U2 could actually exist." Well, YOU have no evidence that U1 could actually exist. We're just talking about what WILL. And you're assuming U1, with no evidence at all.

@d31,

Same thing. There's no evidence either way. So, you now allow that it's reasonable to believe things for which there's no evidence?