Good question, follower

Good question, follower

Good question, follower

Good question, follower

Good question, follower

Good question, follower

Good question, follower

Good question, follower

Good question, follower

Good question, follower

Good question, follower

Good question, follower

good question. I know Abraham is the forefather of Israeils. His influence on religions is very significant.

I believe that the religion is Islam.

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Abraham (PBUH), the father of monotheism and builder of the Kaaba, who is mentioned 69 times in 35 chapters of the Qu’ran, (Kathir 2003, 188)(Wikipedia 2023) is a link in the chain of prophets that begins with Adam and culminates in Muhammad (PBUH) via Ishmael. (Wikipedia 2023) Abraham is also the founding father of the special relationship or covenant between Jews and God in Judaism and the spiritual progenitor of all believers, whether Jews or non-Jews, in Christianity. (Wikipedia 2023)

Asking whether we believe in the religion is pointless. It is well known the religions exist. There is no belief involved in the existence of the religions.

Now asking whether we believe they are correct is different question and I'm not sure that this is the place to try and answer it.

Good question

Good question

Good question

I think The Abrahamic religion is a religion created by the Zionists to create chaos.

Good question

سؤال جيد

Good question

Excellent question

Excellent question

Abraham was a man of faith; he had a covenant relationship with God.

and God blessed him.

A religion is a way to controll peapol keep your freedown.

Raphaël Enthoven thinks that a machine will never be a philosopher. Do you think so? A New Question On: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Raphael_Enthoven_thinks_that_a_machine_will_never_be_a_philosopher_Do_you_think_so

"From science to law, from medicine to military questions, artificial intelligence is shaking up all our fields of expertise. All?? No?! In philosophy, AI is useless." The Artificial Mind, by Raphaël Enthoven, Humensis, 2024.

Excellent question

From the "Informatic Tribe" to the "Artificial Intelligence Sects".

Philippe Breton, The Informatic Tribe. Investigation into a modern passion. Paris: Métailié, 1990. "...A machine, the enthusiast? No: a logical, intuitive artist, crazy about aesthetics, solitary but never alone. Taste for power? No: the tribe responds with a "construction without a body" to the fragility of the biological, close in this way to the Zen which inspired Steve Jobs, the inventor of the microphone. Savior of "mythical sacred time", the computer scientist is the one through whom order arrives. The rules change, the idea of rule is established, spreads and reassures... ", Renaud Zuppinger, Le Monde Diplomatique, April, 1991 (Own translation). See:

https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1991/04/ZUPPINGER/43422

The Conversation, March 15, 2023, Gods in the Machine? The rise of artificial intelligence may result in new religions. ".. We are about to witness the birth of a new kind of religion. In the next few years, or perhaps even months, we will see the emergence of Sects devoted to the worship of artificial intelligence (AI). The latest generation of AI-powered chatbots, trained on large language models, have left their early users awestruck —and sometimes terrified — by their power. These are the same sublime emotions that bind at the heart of our experience of the divine. People already seek religious meaning from very diverse sources. There are, for instance, multiple religions that worship extra-terrestrials or their teachings. As these chatbots come to be used by billions of people, it is inevitable that some of these users will see the AIs as higher beings. We must prepare for the implications." See:

https://theconversation.com/gods-in-the-machine-the-rise-of-artificial-intelligence-may-result-in-new-religions-201068

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Raphael_Enthoven_thinks_that_a_machine_will_never_be_a_philosopher_Do_you_think_so

The "ontological argument", that is to say, the rational proof of the existence of God from the essence, stated by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), disputed by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), then reformulated successively by Descartes (1596-1650) and by Leibniz (1646-1716) magnificently illustrates what Jeanne Hersch called “the philosophical illusion”. Since its refutation by Kant, the "ontological argument" interests only historians. In fact, it holds an important place in the history of philosophy despite its well-accepted falsification by Kant's "criticism of pure reason".

See:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience

Excellent question

Excellent question

80% of the world population today can be categorized as "Abrahamic":See Comman Prophets of the Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus written by Bharat Jhunjhunwala.

On the Rational vs Irrational... Physics vs Metaphysics. Dyson Freeman wrote on the topic: "Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance, they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions" Freeman Dyson (March 15, 2000). Progress In Religion (Speech). Templeton Prize Reading".

Comment: it is IMHO not suitable for us "scientists" to mix Science and Belief, Natural and Supra-natural, Physics and Metaphysics, Chemistry and Alchemy, Rational and Irrational... Moreover, it is destructive for the critical spirit of young people to make amalgams between scientific discourse and non-scientific and/or pseudo-scientific speeches. On the contrary, it is necessary, and it is our duty, to always specify to them the line of demarcation between SCIENCE and other intellectual activities. Read more on this necessary demarcation within this remarkable Chapter philosophical thinking by Gómez‐Morales, Yuri Jack. "Science/Non‐Science and Boundary Work," The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (2007). Available on:

Chapter Science/Non‐science and Boundary Work

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Art_Science_Politics_Philosophy

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_Research_Ethics_and_Higher_Education_Deontology_The_Senior_Scholars_Duty

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_and_history_serving_political_and_ideological_narratives