Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

     The understanding is not 'peculiar' - this is the standard understanding of belief in the predicate logic and for the purposes of knowledge representation it has to be made explicit. Our knowledge of the world, which is also representation, works in the very same way, but we don't need to make it explicit, for we are accepting it as it is - implicit and 'by default'.
     As far as the broken record of FBM is concerned, these are exemplary beliefs for the purposes of the discussion ... and you don't have any moral and immoral right to discuss my beliefs, so far you (& FBM) are hiding zealously yours.
     Can you tell to the forum what exactly the Big Bang 'theory' is claiming ... in no more than 50 words, for example?

     Where do you see any skepticism here. You believe 0% in the Big Bang 'theory', and I believe in it 25%. In comparison to your zero beliefs, my beliefs can definitely be viewed as optimism.

Believe is not a synonym of prefer, end of, and all your verbosity won't make it otherwise.

Honestly. Read that and see if that makes even a modicum of sense. You don't see any skepticism, only lack of belief? You're 75% skeptical of the Big Bang theory yourself, maroon. And then you spend page after page of posts on attempting to discredit the Big Bang theory, contradicting your own alleged 25% belief in it. And what in the least does optimism have to do with anything? Dude, you need a new dictionary. Also, find your English teacher(s) and kick them really hard between the legs. I'd say to find your Logic teacher and do the same, but it's obvious you've never had one.

     Belief is a standard modality in predicate logic for the purposes of knowledge representation ... and dates back to the time of Ancient Greece.

FTWW there are some definitions in Wiki:

Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality. Modals—words that express modalities—qualify a statement. For example, the statement "John is happy" might be qualified by saying that John is usually happy, in which case the term "usually" is functioning as a modal. The traditional alethic modalities, or modalities of truth, include possibility ("Possibly, p", "It is possible that p"), necessity ("Necessarily, p", "It is necessary that p"), and impossibility ("Impossibly, p", "It is impossible that p").[1] Other modalities that have been formalized in modal logic include temporal modalities, or modalities of time (notably, "It was the case that p", "It has always been that p", "It will be that p", "It will always be that p"),[2][3] deontic modalities (notably, "It is obligatory that p", and "It is permissible that p"), epistemic modalities, or modalities of knowledge ("It is known that p")[4] and doxastic modalities, or modalities of belief ("It is believed that p").[5]

Doxastic logic is a modal logic concerned with reasoning about beliefs. The term doxastic derives from the ancient Greek δόξα, doxa, which means "belief." Typically, a doxastic logic uses 'Bx' to mean "It is believed that x is the case," and the set {B} denotes a set of beliefs. In doxastic logic, belief is treated as a modal operator.
     {B}: {b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{n}}
There is complete parallelism between a person who believes propositions and a formal system that derives propositions. Using doxastic logic, one can express the epistemic counterpart of Gödel's incompleteness theorem of metalogic, as well as Löb's theorem, and other metalogical results in terms of belief.[1]

     ... and you are 100% skeptical, which automatically makes 'my skepticism' to seem like optimism in comparison to your personal skepticism. If you are 100% sketical in terms of the Big Bang you have no moral right to talk who is skeptical and who is a blind believer in it ... moreover when you don't understanding anything of what the theory is actually claiming. Can you formulate it in brief, or not?

Skepticism has no bearing on either optimism or pessimism. Can you read? Also, as I've told you a thousand times, my ability to "formulate it in brief" has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's an infinitely stronger theory than anything you've produced (self-contradictory, evidence-free alien/ILF/god-thingy). When you have something better, come back and let's stack it up against what the scientists have.

None of that is remotely relevant, verbose posturing because you can't deal with reality. Your thinking, like your language, is muddled and confused, and the only person you're fooling is yourself.

     ... or perhaps some people have learned some modalities and claims and are neither able to unlearn them, nor to ever learn something else.
     Take for example the following proposition: 'The GMO grain with genetically terminated germ is perfectly safe for consumption' - what are you preferring here: to consume dangerous foods to safe foods or what? You simply have acquired distorted to infinity beliefs (not disbeliefs) as a result of the propaganda of the GMO monetary mafia on the mass media. On the grounds of systematic misinformation, misinterpretation, concealed information of any kind, and twisted data in their presentation you have built to yourself absolutely fake beliefs (that the GMO grain with terminated germ is perfectly safe for consumption) in this example.
     You don't have any preferences here: you are simply assigning truth value, and beliefs respectively (belief of 1.0 to safe food) and (0.999999999 to grain with terminated germ), and say (here comes the preference, BTW, in the comparison): hey they are equally safe - what is the problem?
     The very same is with the Big Bang 'theory'. You have been brainwashed that the red shift can explain only expansion of the Universe and nothing else; that the CMB are traces of the Big Bang and nothing else; that Cosmology is standing above the things and can afford to deal with formal models full of inconsistency - and that the consistency concerns only the 'muddled and confused' mathematicians and computer scientists - the consistency of the formal models and the verification and validation of the claims do not concern the great science of Cosmology. These things concern the simple mortal - and 'our great theory' is replacing God Himself.

No, I don't think anyone else is suckered by your pseudo intellectual bullshit, it's not exactly original.

     The belief revision system of knowledge representation (with machines) and knowledge acquisition (with humans) is classics in computer science and artificial intelligence for over 50 years, but the fact that it is not my original development does not give you any right to deny it ... to infinity.
     So, do you have anything to add on the main theme, which is 'How is our Universe operating - on perfectly random mechanics or by non-deterministic Turing machine ... or on something else'?

You'd think that after all these pages and pages, any person with at least an average intelligence (or lack of delusion) would have realized that the only thing he's accomplished is exposing his ignorance/delusion. And yet he continues to spout garbled nonsense again and again and again. But I have to admit that it's interesting in one respect: http://www.simplypsychology.org/abnormal-psychology.html

Why would I waste my time discussing such issues with you? You have real problems with basic communication. Any question that requires more thinking than what's you're favourite colour is a no brainer. (Even then I think you might struggle.)

We live in an amazing point in history. All this basic education is suddenly available at our fingertips. What's just as amazing is that certain people stubbornly refuse to avail themselves of it and for some insane reason, prefer their blind, feel-good, evidence-free, contradictory guesses and superstitions...amazing...

It's interesting for about five minutes. He's probably found that fast talking such nonsense blinds people with science and makes him appear smarter than he is. That doesn't work when all the contradictory, irrelevant flim flam is written down and can actually be processed.

I suppose if 5 minutes is the extent of one's attention span...

     Because you are on my blog, discussing that issue.
     ... and what is that supposed to mean?

     You are a brazen liar. Now you are trying to misrepresent my unwillingness to discus with you your straw-man aliens-of-the-gaps as inability to concentrate on a theme. Such impudent faces should be deprived of access to any information - for life ... as they obviously cannot handle properly any information without misrepresenting it and misinterpreting it to infinity.

This is not a blog, it's a thread, you may have started it, but it's no more yours than anyone else's. Once you start them they get a momentum of their own.