Or... how can we have induction without God?
This guy makes a good point, but his thinking is flawed to assume some god can solve the problem of induction without any evidence or justification. He also makes the huge mistake of making a deistic argument then assuming Christianity is therefore true (and seems to realize this too o_O).
The more I think about it, the more this argument seems like the old "nothing came from nothing" argument. If God created the rules by which the universe operates, what created the rules by which God could act in any logical manor?
All he has done is shift the problem of induction from the Universe to God the same way the cosmological argument shifts the problem of existence from the Universe to God.
Saying, "Goddit" never solves any problem. But the question is still a good one. How do you know the sun will come up tomorrow? I would simply answer that you cannot know the sun will come up tomorrow; you can only assume it will. And once you distill the value of science to its ability to make predictions or to assume X will happen, the problem of induction is partially eliminated. For example, you are not claiming absolute knowledge that the Earth will continue to revolve around the sun, you just assume that it will continue to do so.
The problem of induction made here assumes knowledge of the future. We can only have knowledge of the past and make predictions of the future. Once you accept this statement as true, the problem of induction vaporizes.