The creation of the heavens and the Earth
-
I beg to differ. I think the Quran does detail it - just like how we're discussing now. The Quran says that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days. What does that mean and how does it reconcile with the science that we know? Sure it's not a recipe book for "How to make a planet for free - a step by step guide with pictures!" but it gives us the information we need to know. The rest we figure out with le gasp science!
Yes, you could read it like that. That's why I say you can stay on that level - as soon you go into more details, it does not actually explain anything. What is "heavens"? Is there a definition? Is Earth part of heavens? Is our solar system part of heavens? Is our sun part of heavens? What process was used? Why do we need a planet and then gazillions of galaxies? Why does it say in 419-12 Earth was created in 2 days, but the mountains and undisclosed "stuff" another 4? And do we really need talking smoke? What are the 7 heaves where the lowest has lights in it? This where it falls apart and does not say that a singularity expanded and gravity formed Earth 10000 millions Earth-years after the Universe. That we have a firmament without cracks on invisible pillars is also not something I'd write into a science test paper. So we don't get details and the very few examples where it goes one level down from the general creation description are not literally describing reality.
This is from Quran-Islam.org
Does that make sense? Or perhaps this needs more clarification? If so, I think it would be cool to make a new thread about it.No, not at all. Mountains grow over time, bottom up, they are not placed on top. We have 5 different types of mountain formation, only 1 results from tectonic collisions. The mountain root is not shaped like a peg as the convergence pushes down and sideways. As you might have heard, there were severe earthquakes in Northern Italy and Japan, so there is no stabilisation effect at all, quite the opposite.
I've only seen "thunderbolts" killing people. I've never heard of simple "thunder" killing people. Which verse is that?
1313 He launcheth the thunder bolts and smiteth with them whom He will
There are no thunderbolts outside of mythology, where they can be anything from lightning or thunder to meteors.
But exactly what you say because we know better today we still tend to use the old words. Just like sunrise or sunset are actually quite wrong.
-
Yes, you could read it like that. That's why I say you can stay on that level - as soon you go into more details, it does not actually explain anything. What is "heavens"? Is there a definition? Is Earth part of heavens? Is our solar system part of heavens? Is our sun part of heavens? What process was used? Why do we need a planet and then gazillions of galaxies? Why does it say in 419-12 Earth was created in 2 days, but the mountains and undisclosed "stuff" another 4? And do we really need talking smoke? What are the 7 heaves where the lowest has lights in it? This where it falls apart and does not say that a singularity expanded and gravity formed Earth 10000 millions Earth-years after the Universe. That we have a firmament without cracks on invisible pillars is also not something I'd write into a science test paper. So we don't get details and the very few examples where it goes one level down from the general creation description are not literally describing reality.
Lol. Each of those questions would need their own topic!
And many times, no. The Quran may not be describing reality literally. The problem I have with some scholars is that they jump to conclusions about what God is trying to say - for instance, that 861-3 is talking about black holes. How can they be absolutely sure that God is talking about black holes? It's a great hypothesis, but can it be proven? The same with saying 541 means the moon has literally been split in two and then try to find scientific proof for it. Why not try to understand the meaning of the verse FIRST before assuming some kind of interpretation and calling it a miracle? Here's a question for all of us
691 The reality.
692 What is the reality?
693 Absolutely, do you know what is the reality?There are some things in life that we think are innate/obvious, but many times God shows us a different perspective. Jumping to conclusions is not healthy.
No, not at all. Mountains grow over time, bottom up, they are not placed on top. We have 5 different types of mountain formation, only 1 results from tectonic collisions. The mountain root is not shaped like a peg as the convergence pushes down and sideways. As you might have heard, there were severe earthquakes in Northern Italy and Japan, so there is no stabilisation effect at all, quite the opposite.
It was to my understanding that mountains as pegs means that it stabilizes tectonic motion so that we're not sliding on magma like bumper cars at a carnival. Either way, I think this topic deserves it's own thread. Why don't you start one about the whole "mountains as pegs" deal?
1313 He launcheth the thunder bolts and smiteth with them whom He will
There are no thunderbolts outside of mythology, where they can be anything from lightning or thunder to meteors.
I thought thunderbolts already include lightning. The "bolt" part is lightning while the thunder part is thunder....
But exactly what you say because we know better today we still tend to use the old words. Just like sunrise or sunset are actually quite wrong.
You know what, you're right. Haha. Tres cool.
Peace. peace
-
Here's a question for all of us
691 The reality.
692 What is the reality?
693 Absolutely, do you know what is the reality?There are some things in life that we think are innate/obvious, but many times God shows us a different perspective. Jumping to conclusions is not healthy.
Good point. I must admit I have not paid much attention to this chapter, but reading it now it is quite powerful.
It was to my understanding that mountains as pegs means that it stabilizes tectonic motion so that we're not sliding on magma like bumper cars at a carnival.
We are.... It's uncanny how solid rock can fold and shift and when it is pushed down it melts like in a "lava lamp".
Either way, I think this topic deserves it's own thread. Why don't you start one about the whole "mountains as pegs" deal?
I thought thunderbolts already include lightning. The "bolt" part is lightning while the thunder part is thunder....
You know what, you're right. Haha. Tres cool.
Peace. peace
Colleagues have told me that the Arabic only means thunder and not thunderbolts, so the translators may have decided to add their understanding into it.
I would still like to get more of a general opinion from people here. It is so interesting. So I'll wait before getting to more detailed features and specifics. -
Le gasp! Totally didn't realize I have yet to reply to you! So sorry!
And peace to you as well!
Nice screen name. I like it. Can I eat it? Though I'd prefer sushi2012...I suppose fermented sushi isn't that bad though either. <---- bad jokes.Totally! Some cool facts I just read last night
1 day in jupiter = 9.55 earth hours. Jupiter rotates fast!!
1 day in mars = 24.35 earth hours. Not too far off from earth. Tres cool.
1 day on Venus = 243 earth days. Super long! Also, the sun rises in the west on Venus because it rotates in the opposite direction.Huge difference between just 3 planets, huh?
Peace and hairgrease! O0
Peace inquisitivetrini,
Hahaha 20 year old sushi?... Eee don't like the sound of that ^.^ dw it's only my nickname when I was young . And really? I never knew Venus took that long to complete one for turn! That's pretty cool! . Don't worry about missing my post , I think you and StopS got into quite a nice debate which I don't mind having on this thread . For now I'm just listening and figuring out how both of you feel about the Quran and "religion". If I may say something, whenever someone calls me "religious" it angers me. Religion to me does not come into islam (islam being obedience/submission). The reason for this is the word "din" to me means deen/system/attitude/judgement. I think Gods laws and the truth cannot be put next to religion. To me religion is man-made and for now is only present to attribute such and such to Gods laws i.e conjecture, guesswork and falsehood which is simply there to conceal the absolute truth. If someone ever asks me what I believe in, I simply say "I believe in Gods laws and submit and obey God alone". Religion is not present .
Peace peace
-
Peace sushi,
Hahaha 20 year old sushi?... Eee don't like the sound of that ^.^
Lol. I love sushi so much, though! My crazy behind would try to eat it. rotfl
...whenever someone calls me "religious" it angers me.
I think I'm starting to have this reaction, too.
Religion to me does not come into islam (islam being obedience/submission). The reason for this is the word "din" to me means deen/system/attitude/judgement. I think Gods laws and the truth cannot be put next to religion. To me religion is man-made and for now is only present to attribute such and such to Gods laws i.e conjecture, guesswork and falsehood which is simply there to conceal the absolute truth. If someone ever asks me what I believe in, I simply say "I believe in Gods laws and submit and obey God alone". Religion is not present .
I've heard of this mentality before. To me it makes a lot of sense, especially when the word "religion" is difficult to define. God says that He does not want hardship for us and to make things easy - but if Islam = religion, then things quickly become difficult as to how we're supposed to follow it. I think this is why rituals get incorporated into Islam so easily. A religion must have rituals, right?
But if Islam is NOT a religion and is instead a system/attitude or perhaps a way of life, then all of a sudden the burden of "religion" and conformity is gone. It's like a fresh breath of air! It is only then that I can see Islam as 'peaceful'. If Islam is a religion, I honestly don't see very much peace.
peace
-
Now you know what it is like to get replies formulated the way you sent them to me.
Salaam,
Ah I see, you were teaching me a lesson D
But nothing changed from our last discussion, you are still clueless even on "your" territory.
Salaam,
Benderps whenever you find the proof for the age of the earth please notify me.
-
Hey Bender. Salam! A scientific theory is generally accepted as truth because it has frequently been tested to be true until proven wrong! Ok?
Peace! yay
Salaam,
Not accepted as the truth, but accepted as the best what we have at the moment, sometimes this can be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar away from the truth and sometimes it can be close. In general the more we advance in time the nearer with get to the truth with science.
Salaam,
Benderps it seems that your wish in your introduction post is already coming true, it's really hard to believe you started your journey in june this year )
pps I like to share some Quran verses with you which translators translate wrong for some reason which have to do with this subject
33 He sent down to you The Book with the truth, authenticating what is between His hands; and He sent down The Torah and The Indjiel.
1037 This Quran could not have been produced without Allah; it is to authenticate what is between His hands, and to give details of The Book in which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.
297 Say "Whoever is an enemy to Jibriel, then know that he has sent it down into your heart with the permission of God, authenticating what is bettween His hands, and a guide and good news for the believers."
I am sure you noticed the capital H in the verses.
-
Not accepted as the truth, but accepted as the best what we have at the moment, sometimes this can be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar away from the truth and sometimes it can be close. In general the more we advance in time the nearer with get to the truth with science.
I see what you're saying and I kind of knew what you meant when you said a "scientific theory is not proven". It IS proven to be correct UNTIL a better method or proof cancels out the previous theory. Probably why I spent so much time explaining what a scientific theory is in so much detail.
ps it seems that your wish in your introduction post is already coming true, it's really hard to believe you started your journey in june this year )
Aww, thanks! Your statement really made my day! yay
pps I like to share some Quran verses with you which translators translate wrong for some reason which have to do with this subject
33 He sent down to you The Book with the truth, authenticating what is between His hands; and He sent down The Torah and The Indjiel.
1037 This Quran could not have been produced without Allah; it is to authenticate what is between His hands, and to give details of The Book in which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.
297 Say "Whoever is an enemy to Jibriel, then know that he has sent it down into your heart with the permission of God, authenticating what is bettween His hands, and a guide and good news for the believers."
Thank you for those verses. Of course I noticed the capital H, but you made me think more into it. Authenticating what is between His hands... !
Salam! sun
-
I see what you're saying and I kind of knew what you meant when you said a "scientific theory is not proven". It IS proven to be correct UNTIL a better method or proof cancels out the previous theory. Probably why I spent so much time explaining what a scientific theory is in so much detail.
Salaam,
A theory is based on 1 or more hypotheses. Hypothesis are per definition not proofed => theories are not proven.
I don't like the sentence "it is proven" because they are not. Getting only good hits does not mean proven.
There are for example in mathmatics some famous hypothesis which have till this day only good hits but they are still called hypothesis, simply because a zillion good hits does not mean proven.Aww, thanks! Your statement really made my day! yay
Thank you for those verses. Of course I noticed the capital H, but you made me think more into it. Authenticating what is between His hands... !
Salam! sun
handshake
Salaam,
Bender -
Shalom Aleikhem,
Salaam,
A theory is based on 1 or more hypotheses. Hypothesis are per definition not proofed => theories are not proven.
I don't like the sentence "it is proven" because they are not. Getting only good hits does not mean proven.
There are for example in mathmatics some famous hypothesis which have till this day only good hits but they are still called hypothesis, simply because a zillion good hits does not mean proven.handshake
Salaam,
BenderProbably you missed my response
Shalom Aleikhem,
O MY GOD !!
One could not be more mistaken. You managed to misunderstand "scientific theory". Now, before we begin, let me ensure you that I know that in everyday life, we use the word "theory" to propose an untested idea. But that is not how scientists use the word. In science, an untested idea would be a "hypothesis".
We have scientific laws that we can check and confirm to be true. We have "facts" / confirmed observations. What we do then is come up with a hypothesis. And test if our hypothesis is true. When we can back the "hypothesis" up with observations/tests, then we are making it into a theory.
To keep it short, a scientific theory is the opposite of what you stated. It is the logical construct of all known facts, confirmed observations, laws of nature and guess what ? You can even test it. When you have a theory, it should make predictions which you can go and check if they are true. And for all scientific theories, they earned their title by proving that they are true.
And by the way, your wild guess about how a theory is developed is WRONG. You are equating unproven hypothesis with scientific theory. No, we do not simply bundle 10 unproven ideas and call it a scientific theory. That is another wrong assertion of yours. On top of that, all you need to disprove a given theory is to demonstrate that it did not work on one single occasion. Thats it. So, in no way can you compare that with "only counting the hits".
At this point, you are basically beating up a straw man, not Scientific Theory.
Oh, and for the love of God, don't take it personally.
Peace
------------- Student of Allah -
Peace sushi1992,
The angels, with their reports, climb to Him in a day that equals fifty thousand years.
Because of the different length of days in the Quran it could be concluded that time is a matter of perpective.
for instance, time is different when we are asleep, or will slow down or speed up when faced
with potential danger. According to einstein, if one traveled at just under the the speed of
light one can experience days while the stationary persons on earth would only experience
minutes. In my opinion, this is why the Quran defines "day" differently. Allah is far ahead of
science. It has now become a scientific fact, one proof is the GPS systems that many of use in
our daily lives.Praise to Allah lord of the universe
Peace O0
Peace ),
Interesting... I agree fully with the time concept. One thing that confuses me about the verse quoted is what does "climb to" actually mean? And what may be the reasoning for so many years to climb to God - isn't God omnipresent? o
Peace peace
-
for instance, time is different when we are asleep, or will slow down or speed up when faced with potential danger. According to einstein, if one traveled at just under the the speed of light one can experience days while the stationary persons on earth would only experience minutes. In my opinion, this is why the Quran defines "day" differently. Allah is far ahead of science. It has now become a scientific fact, one proof is the GPS systems that many of use in our daily lives.
I only saw this now in a reply by Sushi...
Are you sure about your point re time?
Isn't it that time is a constant?
What is changing is the variable speed. Time remains constant, whether we sleep or wait - it is the variable, our perception, which varies. The definition of day=1 rotation is a constant for many years. It does not change. The arbitrary division by humans is the variable, not time. GPS satellites adjust for speed differences using Einstein's equation of special relativity. Also, because they are several 1000s kms away we need to apply Einstein's general relativity theory to correct for the gravity curvature of space and time. All man-made.The Koran does not give us any technical definitions. The time span of 50000 or 1000 days just means a very long time. The sentence with the "climbing" mirrors the efforts of Haman, who was supposed to build a tower for humans to climb all the way to heaven.
-
Peace ,
Interesting... I agree fully with the time concept. One thing that confuses me about the verse quoted is what does "climb to" actually mean? And what may be the reasoning for so many years to climb to God - isn't God omnipresent?
Peace peacePeace sushi1992,
The psyhics of time is hinted in the Quran.
All matters are controlled by Him from the heaven to the earth. To Him, the day is equivalent to one thousand of your years.
Shakir To Him ascend the angels and the Spirit in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.
We could also substistute ascend or travel or rise in place of climb. The point is that this distance
that is being described appears to be angels moving to a destination. Movement across and thru
the known universe for us takes a vast amount of time, comparatively 50,000 years from some other
perspective can be a day or even shorter.God is Omnipresent.
To GOD belongs the east and the west; wherever you go there will be the presence of GOD. GOD is Omnipresent, Omniscient.
It cannot be said that God is affected by time. That is still a hypothesis.
To GOD belongs the future of the heavens and the earth. As far as He is concerned, the end of the world (the Hour) is a blink of an eye away, or even closer. GOD is Omnipotent.
The one who possessed knowledge from the book said, "I can bring it to you in the blink of your eye." When he saw it settled in front of him, he said, "This is a blessing from my Lord, whereby He tests me, to show whether I am appreciative or unappreciative. Whoever is appreciative is appreciative for his own good, and if one turns unappreciative, then my Lord is in no need for him, Most Honorable."
Our commands are done within the blink of an eye.
Peace O0
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
Probably you missed my response
Salaam SoA,
Yes I missed it. Normally I never miss a post of you, as there is always some wisdom in your posts, but this time for some reason I missed it
O MY GOD !!
One could not be more mistaken.
It almost looks like I did some blasphemous statements on a God alone forum
You managed to misunderstand "scientific theory".
I only managed to misunderstand how you define scientific theory.
Now, before we begin, let me ensure you that I know that in everyday life, we use the word "theory" to propose an untested idea. But that is not how scientists use the word.
In science, an untested idea would be a "hypothesis".
We have scientific laws that we can check and confirm to be true. We have "facts" / confirmed observations. What we do then is come up with a hypothesis.
And test if our hypothesis is true.
When we can back the "hypothesis" up with observations/tests, then we are making it into a theory.BLUE Thanks for the explanation, but I was not talking about "theory" in everyday life. I was talking about a scientific theory.
RED I do not agree. Every hypothesis is based on something. If it's not, then it can hardly be called a hypothesis imho but more a fantasy.
GREEN Probably I am misunderstanding you, but it looks like you are contradicting your red part.
ORANGE not test if it's "true", but test if it "holds".
PINK I agreeTo keep it short, a scientific theory is the opposite of what you stated. It is the logical construct of all known facts, confirmed observations, laws of nature and guess what ? You can even test it. When you have a theory, it should make predictions which you can go and check if they are true. And for all scientific theories, they earned their title by proving that they are true.
RED Are you serious? You confuse "true" with "not refuted yet".
I guess you know very well what the history is of most scientific theories which were constructed of all known "facts" and confirmed with observations and laws of nature.
And by the way, your wild guess about how a theory is developed is WRONG.
FYI I am not wild guessing.
You are equating unproven hypothesis with scientific theory.
No.
Just for clarification, I was talking about theories in physics, chemestry, biology, archeology etc and not mathmatical theories (like group theory).No, we do not simply bundle 10 unproven ideas and call it a scientific theory. That is another wrong assertion of yours. On top of that, all you need to disprove a given theory is to demonstrate that it did not work on one single occasion. Thats it. So, in no way can you compare that with "only counting the hits".
Who is "we"
You take my words in a wrong way and then try to proof me wrong.
Let me be very clear to you, there is not a single sientific theory which has been proven, there are only scientific theories which are not refuted (yet).
Not refuted does not mean it has been proven.to say it in your words We take a bundle of 10 not yet refuted ideas and then call it a scientific theory.
Before you make a wrong assumption, with proof I do not mean the scientific proof, but a proof like in maths.
At this point, you are basically beating up a straw man, not Scientific Theory.
I could say something similair to you, just a bit different
Oh, and for the love of God, don't take it personally.
Peace
------------- Student of AllahI did took it personal, now I am very >
Salaam,
Benderps even if a scientific theory holds and predicts everything correct till the end of times, it still does not mean that the theory is correct.
-
I only managed to misunderstand how you define scientific theory.
FYI I am not wild guessing.
ps even if a scientific theory holds and predicts everything correct till the end of times, it still does not mean that the theory is correct.
This was your statement to me
"As far as I know we have a theory which per definition is not proven, so we know nothing, we are just guessing on basis of this theory."Are you guessing or not? You need to make up your mind.
Neither you or I have defined what a scientific theory is, so we are using the commonly accepted definition. Are you referring to a specific theory or is your usage of "a theory" just bad English?
Could you please provide the following before we get tangled up in misunderstandings
- your definition of a scientific theory
- a criterion that would prove gravity on this planet as being correct and proven (just to ascertain that the Theory of Gravity is based on guesswork, by definition)
- a criterion that would falsify a scientific theory
I think this is reasonable and manageable.
-
Salam everyone,
Y u no read articles I post about scientific theory definitions?! >(
-
Peace everyone,
Here's a link explaining the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a scientific law.
http//www.wilstar.com/theories.htmNow StopS, you are right in this case. A scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that is generally accepted to be true. But let's go a bit deeper into the meaning of a scientific theory. I think this article draws it out nicely, even though it's talking about a different subject.
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Excerpts from the article
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
So yes. A fact still has the possibility to be proven wrong. The same with a scientific theory.
A scientific theory is indeed NOT based on a hunch.
Peace and blessings.
-
Shalom Aleikhem Bender,
It almost looks like I did some blasphemous statements on a God alone forum
lol, yes, I confess, my statement was a bit dramatic.
I only managed to misunderstand how you define scientific theory.
Oh, in that case all you need to do is google. The scientific method is well known and documented. I would go with the mainstream to define that.
BLUE Thanks for the explanation, but I was not talking about "theory" in everyday life. I was talking about a scientific theory.
Well, it looked to me as if you were talking about guessworks at its best, not scientific theories.
RED I do not agree. Every hypothesis is based on something. If it's not, then it can hardly be called a hypothesis imho but more a fantasy.
Well, a hypothesis is like an educated guess. Ofcourse its based on something reasonable. You can't look at a phenomena and assert "a holy frog caused this" and then label it as a hypothesis. But, no matter how reasonable your educated guess/hypothesis is, you need to validate and verify it.
GREEN Probably I am misunderstanding you, but it looks like you are contradicting your red part.
Sorry, I do not agree. Let me start with quoting myself "We have scientific laws that we can check and confirm to be true. We have "facts" / confirmed observations. What we do then is come up with a hypothesis." So, you have the data, you know the facts, and then you try and explain these with a reasonable hypothesis. Mind you, just because you are using facts and observations does not make your "hypothesis" valid. Its like hearing a scream from the basement, you know that it was a girl's voice, and you found a girl's shoes just outside the door. Given those facts, you come up with a "hypothesis"/educated guess about who is in the basement. Lets say that your hypothesis is that its a girl, and my hypothesis is that its the TV that we left on. We then conduct a series of tests to back our hypothesis up.
I really don't see what is contradictory in that. The thing is, you don't stop with your hypothesis. That is not the last step.
ORANGE not test if it's "true", but test if it "holds".
lol, yes, true until you can prove it to be wrong.
RED Are you serious? You confuse "true" with "not refuted yet".
Yes I am serious. I will answer this in the later part of this post.
I guess you know very well what the history is of most scientific theories which were constructed of all known "facts" and confirmed with observations and laws of nature.
Thats no reason for resorting to something other than science. I don't know where you are going with this. Perhaps, you should open a separate thread to discuss specific theories which were built using facts and observations, using the scientific method. Then you could discuss it there.
Who is "we"
We = Us. People that investigate and make sense of the world around us using the scientific method.
You take my words in a wrong way and then try to proof me wrong.
Sorry if I ended up doing that. It wasnt my intention.
Let me be very clear to you, there is not a single sientific theory which has been proven, there are only scientific theories which are not refuted (yet).
Not refuted does not mean it has been proven.to say it in your words We take a bundle of 10 not yet refuted ideas and then call it a scientific theory.
Before you make a wrong assumption, with proof I do not mean the scientific proof, but a proof like in maths.
ps even if a scientific theory holds and predicts everything correct till the end of times, it still does not mean that the theory is correct.
Well, I hate misleading play of words and concepts. Everything that we know can be wrong. I mean, you are a "man", male member of the human race. But how do we know that someday you will not wake up a female ? or an alligator ? or a car ? Even if you remain "you" till death, it does not prove that the "assumption" that you are you is true.
When I drop an object, it falls down, hits the floor. Its always the case, but I can not tell you that this will be happening till the end of time, or this is true and not an illusion. I have never witnessed water flowing uphill , its always from a high place to a low place. But I consider that to be true not because I can prove that this will be the case till the end of time.
But, that system of understanding the universe around me is not utilitarian and serves no use to humanity at all. That is why I resort to science. Because it "works". One could write for ages when it comes to the contribution of modern science to our civilization, and all that, is based on " holds until proven wrong". From the house that you are residing at this moment, the roads you use, the water you drink, the clothes you wear, medicine, transportation, agriculture, electricity, technology etc etc, we achieved all that based on "theories that hold until disproven".
I don't know about you, but I am proud of that, and I side with Scientific Method and Scientific theories. If you wanted to question the nature of truth itself, you can start by asking if you are real or not. And once again that model does not provide and have never given me anything.
Every idea, literally EVERY IDEA is a "not yet refuted" idea. That should not be a license for classifying all ideas as equals. For example, me believing that you are a "male" till I die is not something I would expect one to not take seriously and repeat, its only "holding ground until its disproven".
Peace
------------- Student of Allah -
So yes. A fact still has the possibility to be proven wrong. The same with a scientific theory.
A scientific theory is indeed NOT based on a hunch.
Absolutely.
As it says at the bottom
Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be modified.
Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They can never be modified because they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.
This means that as soon as someone has proof that apples float up without any help we need to revisit gravity. But just voicing an opinion or personal preference will not work.