DABA = AI
-
Salam,
I was reading 2782 and have come to a slightly simplistic understanding.
We always read the verse in full sentence - thinking that the DABA will speak to the people informing them that they are unaware of God’s signs. However, there is another way to read it
“And when the word has fallen upon them, We will produce for them a creature of the Earth that will speak to them. The people are unaware of Our signs”
This simple verse split changes the creature from one that converses about God - to one that simply speaks. This is Artificial Intelligence in its basic form and not a complicated prophet creature.
-
Salam,
I was reading 2782 and have come to a slightly simplistic understanding.
We always read the verse in full sentence - thinking that the DABA will speak to the people informing them that they are unaware of God’s signs. However, there is another way to read it
“And when the word has fallen upon them, We will produce for them a creature of the Earth that will speak to them. The people are unaware of Our signs”
This simple verse split changes the creature from one that converses about God - to one that simply speaks. This is Artificial Intelligence in its basic form and not a complicated prophet creature.
Peace Layth...
Absolutely.. It is one of the strange verses.. I wonder why you didn't fail to add it under Prophesy Segment...
Better to add the two previous verses as well...
2780 " Thou shalt not make the dead to hear, neither shalt thou make the deaf to hear the call when they turn about, retreating"
2781 " Thou shalt not guide the blind out of their error neither shalt thou make any to hear, save such as believe in Our signs, and so surrender"God definitely speaks about the people who will never listen to the signs of God... God used Dabba in all other verses if i am not mistaken to living being not artificial ... But this looks very manifest that it is artificial with intent.... When all God Naturally created things failed with such people the artificial creature will speak... We don't have so far any such creature other than all we know... no need to explain... but next verse says 2783 about the gathering day.... Loads of indication... In fact this is a prophecy in understanding..i believe that already being happening...
Note God never created any creature other than Human apart from Jin that can speak... Somehow we don't see Jin.. If it is not artificial what is that intelligent natural Creature that can speak to those who don't believe in God and His signs..
God knows best.... -
sure and it will give us the answer 42
but next verse says 2783 about the gathering day.... Loads of indication... In fact this is a prophecy in understanding..i believe that already being happening...
yes, shits getting real. the next year will be fun...
-
Salam,
I was reading 2782 and have come to a slightly simplistic understanding.
We always read the verse in full sentence - thinking that the DABA will speak to the people informing them that they are unaware of God’s signs. However, there is another way to read it
“And when the word has fallen upon them, We will produce for them a creature of the Earth that will speak to them. The people are unaware of Our signs”
This simple verse split changes the creature from one that converses about God - to one that simply speaks. This is Artificial Intelligence in its basic form and not a complicated prophet creature.
It's an interesting theory but I can tell as a computer programmer and developer that AI is impossible. And I will go as far as to say that even if the human race existed for all eternity we may never reach the ability to produce a true AI. Human beings will never be able to design an AI because
- You cannot program what you do not know or fully understand. When a programmer programs he needs to have a blueprint. What are the mechanics of consciousness? What are all the processes that occur to make a being fully conscious? Science does not have a proper answer to any of the above questions. Therefore if science doesn't have the answer to this question how would a programmer know where to start and how to build a true AI without a blueprint of consciousness.
- Even if by some miracle we discover all of the processes and mechanics of consciousness that does not entail we will have the ability to create its likeness
- For you to develop a true AI you need a highly advanced programming language. None of the programming languages we have can make a true AI because all of the programming languages that exist will only allow you to create programs that are programmed by programmers. Everything is under the control of the programmer. A true AI must be developed by a programming language that can live, breathe and evolve. This capability I'm of a firm belief is completely beyond our reach and scope as human beings.
Regards,
Kevin
-
It's an interesting theory but I can tell as a computer programmer and developer that AI is impossible.
If what you mean is TI (True Intelligence) and not AI (Artificial Intelligence) then I agree.
There's a reason why it's named as Artificial, because it means that it is fake. Artificial Intelligence means fake intelligence. It's not intelligence but it can be perceived as intelligence (by human) thus it's named as Artificial Intelligence.
The same as "Pseudo random" in computer lingo, it's not actually random but it can be perceived as random by it's observer (human) because true random doesn't exist.
And I will go as far as to say that even if the human race existed for all eternity we may never reach the ability to produce a true AI. Human beings will never be able to design an AI because
Agree, human will never have the ability to produce a true intelligence.
In order to have true intelligence, human needs to produce creativity within the machine.
In order to produce creativity human need to tolerate the machine to be inconsistent, to venture forth from it's given framework and boundary condition which beats the purpose of building the machine in the first place. And the mechanism to produce such inconsistency is unknown.
It relate to the topics of producing "true random" as mentioned earlier, as long as "pseudo random" is being applied then true inconsistency cannot be achieved.Imagine having an iPhone that no longer wanted to function just because it's in the bad mood?
Or it suddenly invented a virus on it's own in order to gain control of another iPhones?Another example is in the case of "AI for self driving cars" in a condition where 3 possible outcome need to be chosen
A. Turn a sharp left and crash to the pedestrian. (probable results death of pedestrians)
B. Stay on course and let the suddenly appeared motorcycle to crash to you (probable results death of the motorcyclist)
C. Turn a sharp right and crash to the river (probable results self annihilation)The programmer of the AI need to set a condition (weight factor) which outcome will be "more preferable". Survival of the self? Safety of pedestrian? Safety of another road users?
Once such condition is set, the AI will behave constantly following the condition set by the programmer.
OR
The programmer of the AI can apply "Pseudo Random" to set the weight factor thus sometimes the AI will choose A some other time B or C based on the current date and time when it happened (thus labelled as "Pseudo" But such decision will render the AI to be "unpredictable" thus "unsafe".- You cannot program what you do not know or fully understand. When a programmer programs he needs to have a blueprint. What are the mechanics of consciousness? What are all the processes that occur to make a being fully conscious? Science does not have a proper answer to any of the above questions. Therefore if science doesn't have the answer to this question how would a programmer know where to start and how to build a true AI without a blueprint of consciousness.
The true intelligence will need to have the capability to write it's own blueprint and discover it's own consciousness by itself.
- For you to develop a true AI you need a highly advanced programming language. None of the programming languages we have can make a true AI because all of the programming languages that exist will only allow you to create programs that are programmed by programmers. Everything is under the control of the programmer. A true AI must be developed by a programming language that can live, breathe and evolve.
The true intelligence will need to have the capability to write it's own programming language, to devise it's own mechanism of hardware, to go beyond current capability and limitation of boolean logic math, to go even beyond applying the quantum probability and pairing mechanism for computation.
-
It's an interesting theory but I can tell as a computer programmer and developer that AI is impossible. And I will go as far as to say that even if the human race existed for all eternity we may never reach the ability to produce a true AI. Human beings will never be able to design an AI because
- You cannot program what you do not know or fully understand. When a programmer programs he needs to have a blueprint. What are the mechanics of consciousness? What are all the processes that occur to make a being fully conscious? Science does not have a proper answer to any of the above questions. Therefore if science doesn't have the answer to this question how would a programmer know where to start and how to build a true AI without a blueprint of consciousness.
- Even if by some miracle we discover all of the processes and mechanics of consciousness that does not entail we will have the ability to create its likeness
- For you to develop a true AI you need a highly advanced programming language. None of the programming languages we have can make a true AI because all of the programming languages that exist will only allow you to create programs that are programmed by programmers. Everything is under the control of the programmer. A true AI must be developed by a programming language that can live, breathe and evolve. This capability I'm of a firm belief is completely beyond our reach and scope as human beings.
Regards,
Kevin
Peace...
2273 “O men, a similitude is struck; so give you ear to it. Surely those upon whom you call, apart from God, shall NEVER CREATE A FLY, though they banded together to do it;……. ….”
The above verse clarifies that human or any other cannot even create a fly which is a true natural creature and not AI… So, what could be the creature that would speak to us as per verse 2782… That says “We will bringforth” .. so God directly involved.. but it doesn’t mean that human cannot be involved in it, since ‘WE’ is used..
At the same time God says in verse 2273 Human or any other creature cannot even create a fly…. Though human has made many powerful inventions but not natural creature.. True AI is still artificial coz it is not natural without human involvement…
So human will never ever create anything that is equal to natural creatures… So we can deduce that it is a true Artificial Intelligence if human happen to create or already created..… but if no human involved, then ……… 2782 “And when the word befalls them … ” Since it is happening at the edge of the day of resurrection, with possibilities, we can deduce something of a creature that no one ever has witnessed before from God’s side.. A real creature specifically designed for the purpose of talking to people to expose their denial manifestly in which human would keep his trust.... both possible..
that's my understanding.... -
Peace,
If what you mean is TI (True Intelligence) and not AI (Artificial Intelligence) then I agree.
There's no such terminology called TI in engineering. There is Strong AI or True AI. These are the engineering terminologies. Based on what Layth was proposing he was suggesting a True AI which is impossible to design since we don't have a blueprint to mimic its design. Most of what is engineered today are inspired by nature. If you don't know or fully understand the mechanics of consciousness how can any programmer or engineer even begin to design a True AI?
If you're in agreement that we cannot create a True AI then a regular AI which would be pre-programmed by humans beings isn't true intelligence. So, therefore, how can we use an AI as the meaning of the verses Sura 2782?
The best interpretation of this verse is the computer. The computer is made of earthly materials and computes millions of calculations and handles multiple processes at amazing speeds. Sura 50 was the first sura that was imported into the computer that calculated the frequency of the letter Q(Qaf) as a multiple of 19. As a programmer and a strong proponent of code 19, I prefer this interpretation. Why? A creature made of earthly materials could be easily be interpreted as a machine or a better yet a computer. Do machines/computers speak? Yeah, they do. They compute tasks and give readings to human beings through terminals and User Interfaces.
Regards,
Kevin
-
Peace,
There's no such terminology called TI in engineering. There is Strong AI or True AI. These are the engineering terminologies. Based on what Layth was proposing he was suggesting a True AI which is impossible to design since we don't have a blueprint to mimic its design. Most of what is engineered today are inspired by nature. If you don't know or fully understand the mechanics of consciousness how can any programmer or engineer even begin to design a True AI?
If you're in agreement that we cannot create a True AI then a regular AI which would be pre-programmed by humans beings isn't true intelligence. So, therefore, how can we use an AI as the meaning of the verses Sura 2782?
The best interpretation of this verse is the computer. The computer is made of earthly materials and computes millions of calculations and handles multiple processes at amazing speeds. Sura 50 was the first sura that was imported into the computer that calculated the frequency of the letter Q(Qaf) as a multiple of 19. As a programmer and a strong proponent of code 19, I prefer this interpretation. Why? A creature made of earthly materials could be easily be interpreted as a machine or a better yet a computer. Do machines/computers speak? Yeah, they do. They compute tasks and give readings to human beings through terminals and User Interfaces.
Regards,
Kevin
Peace...
Why brother Layth's concern cannot be possible.. After all AI is a computer.. Do you agree? We know RK brought it saying it is computers that is meant by the verse 2782 and not natural creature.. . But only with the advent of latest technology Layth used the word AI... I hope..
If computers in general is Okay for you for the verse 2782 then why not AI? Would you pls explain why? Both human intelligence only produced.. Human made it and programmed but it doesn't mean that it can't go beyond human capacity.. Human programmed it but isn't computers faster and more precise than human...do we trust computers nowadays or human? Ponder... It can go on its own... That's AI...
For example God created human.. But didn't human deny God.. Just coz God created doesn't mean human cannot deny Him.. he can deny ... Same way.. Human created/programmed AI but it can deny human by being on its own...God says it speaks and we human seems to be trusting in it while it exposes... So.. It seems human trust that creature better than human.. Coz that's seems special and better than human in general.. Hope you got me...
TI.. Lol.. Artificial intelligence is not fake... AI better accepted than human nowadays.. Lol
-
Peace...
Why brother Layth's concern cannot be possible.. After all AI is a computer.. Do you agree? We know RK brought it saying it is computers that is meant by the verse 2782 and not natural creature.. . But only with the advent of latest technology Layth used the word AI... I hope..
If computers in general is Okay for you for the verse 2782 then why not AI? Would you pls explain why? Both human intelligence only produced.. Human made it and programmed but it doesn't mean that it can't go beyond human capacity.. Human programmed it but isn't computers faster and more precise than human...do we trust computers nowadays or human? Ponder... It can go on its own... That's AI...
For example God created human.. But didn't human deny God.. Just coz God created doesn't mean human cannot deny Him.. he can deny ... Same way.. Human created/programmed AI but it can deny human by being on its own...God says it speaks and we human seems to be trusting in it while it exposes... So.. It seems human trust that creature better than human.. Coz that's seems special and better than human in general.. Hope you got me...
TI.. Lol.. Artificial intelligence is not fake... AI better accepted than human nowadays.. Lol
Peace,
The 'AI' that we have today I wouldn't describe them as AI's but rather cleverly designed programs to give the appearance of intelligence. AI's like Google, Alexa, Siri, and Cortana, these AI's have no real intelligence. All responses and tasks are programmed. For example, if the user asks for a specific task to be done, based on the conditions programmed to handle such requests, the AI will execute accordingly. This is not intelligence. When programmers or engineers use the term AI to describe such programs/software they're being disingenuous. Not one program ever designed by man has any real intelligence. These systems that they describe as having AI are just for marketing purposes.
The creature described in Sura 2782 can be described as a computer because anything that has been made by earthly materials and can 'speak' must be mechanical in nature. Please note that the verse never stated that the 'creature' had real intelligence. But rather it allowed human beings to see God's signs. That's all.
Regards,
Kevin
-
Peace,
There's no such terminology called TI in engineering. There is Strong AI or True AI. These are the engineering terminologies. Based on what Layth was proposing he was suggesting a True AI which is impossible to design since we don't have a blueprint to mimic its design. Most of what is engineered today are inspired by nature. If you don't know or fully understand the mechanics of consciousness how can any programmer or engineer even begin to design a True AI?
If there's one thing about software / computer industry that doesn't change is that they constantly rebranding the same old concept with new terminology.. rotfl
In the past (70's - 80s) the thing that now known as "Artificial Intelligence" / "Cognitive Intelligence" / "Strong AI" / "True AI" was labeled as "Automation / Autonomous Agent".
I prefer the "old name" as it's closer to the truth. Neural Networks, Decision Tree, Naive Bayes, K-Means Clustering are algorithm commonly used to build automation and autonomous agent. It's not intelligence at all, however the phenomenon that it creates somehow can be perceived as "intelligence" by the untrained mass.
If you're in agreement that we cannot create a True AI then a regular AI which would be pre-programmed by humans beings isn't true intelligence.
True human like (or any sentient beings) intelligence requires creativity.. which the machine doesn't and cannot possess..
Do machines/computers speak? Yeah, they do. They compute tasks and give readings to human beings through terminals and User Interfaces.
The machines do not speak, they merely generating an audio wave based on binary data being stored.
They don't have any clue of what is being spoken and have no intent by themselves to communicate.The 'AI' that we have today I wouldn't describe them as AI's but rather cleverly designed programs to give the appearance of intelligence. AI's like Google, Alexa, Siri, and Cortana, these AI's have no real intelligence. All responses and tasks are programmed.
Well said... inline of what I described above.
It's not Google Search, IBM Watson, Apple Siri who are 'intelligent'.
It's the team of Google programmers, IBM programmers, Apple programmers who are 'intelligent' and creative.Google Search, Watson and Siri are just manifestation / product of the human programmers.
Taking this up to higher level on the network chain, the human programmers can also be viewed as merely the manifestation or product of the one infinite creator. The true source of creativity power that powered the human programmers. Thus everything are actually the creation of the one infinite creator; including Google Search, Watson and Siri.
Peace
-
Peace,
The 'AI' that we have today I wouldn't describe them as AI's but rather cleverly designed programs to give the appearance of intelligence. AI's like Google, Alexa, Siri, and Cortana, these AI's have no real intelligence. All responses and tasks are programmed. For example, if the user asks for a specific task to be done, based on the conditions programmed to handle such requests, the AI will execute accordingly. This is not intelligence. When programmers or engineers use the term AI to describe such programs/software they're being disingenuous. Not one program ever designed by man has any real intelligence. These systems that they describe as having AI are just for marketing purposes.
The creature described in Sura 2782 can be described as a computer because anything that has been made by earthly materials and can 'speak' must be mechanical in nature. Please note that the verse never stated that the 'creature' had real intelligence. But rather it allowed human beings to see God's signs. That's all.
Regards,
Kevin
Peace.. Quite agreeable with you what you say but AIs are in use in many sectors..
However.. Let's wait and see what the verse speak of.. Coz it says people don't believe in God's verses but with what the creature speaks they seems believe in it.. It doesn't mean they believe in God but it seems too late... Isn't it.. -
peace, AI is only a marketing buzz word and a computer is a tool like 5,000-year-old abucas.
To give an analogy a hound dog is on a trail comes to a fork in the road sniffs A false then also sniffs B and continues whereas a human is more efficient (if then else logic) e.g. IF not A THEN B which can be programmed even so it’s only dumb code whereas the dog can adapt to unforeseen possibilities, hence intelligent. -
Salam.
I think the point I was trying to convey has gotten muddled in this discussion.
The "signs" of the Quran are sometimes subtle and can be overlooked for those who do not understand what to look for...
For example, the "splitting of the moon" (541) is a sign that many people believe happened at the time of the prophet and then the moon was put back together again, while some are still waiting for the event to happen (where the moon breaks into pieces)...then you have a more subtle reading where it is believed that the event took place in 1969 when man "breached the moon" (which is a meaning of "Inshaqa".
I would propose the same for 2782. People can wait for a Dragon to come out from the Earth and lecture them on the merits of faith in God, or...it can be a subtle sign - like a robot (daba) having the ability to speak to people in limited intelligence.
-
Peace.. Quite agreeable with you what you say but AIs are in use in many sectors..
However.. Let's wait and see what the verse speak of.. Coz it says people don't believe in God's verses but with what the creature speaks they seems believe in it.. It doesn't mean they believe in God but it seems too late... Isn't it..Peace..
If add a bit.. Why computer could be the creature is coz, God says people were unaware of our signs... So with the discovery of computer and relevant products such mobiles which is prevelance in everyone's hand may expose the signs of God coz everything is so close.. Only thing we have to ponder what is truth... Looking God's creation at the time of revelation of quran and now is super easy... Good creation and miracles of this wonderful world is much exposed and everyone is much facilitated to witness them.. That may also be what God says by the verse 2782.. -
..
For example, the "splitting of the moon" (541) is a sign that many people believe happened at the time of the prophet and then the moon was put back together again, while some are still waiting for the event to happen (where the moon breaks into pieces)...then you have a more subtle reading where it is believed that the event took place in 1969 when man "breached the moon" (which is a meaning of "Inshaqa".
Totally not necessary to bring this example of moon landing... You have no proof dear brother Layth.. No eyewitness... Is there?.. Just coz computers are there doesn't mean we have to believe everything what computer says...
Below is the verse you support for it..5401-02 "The Hour has come near, and the moon has split. Yet if they see a sign they turn away, and they say 'A continuous sorcery."
The above two verses never talk of moon landing.... Even if take so.. Just see the next verse... It says people deny it... So.. In current day literate people almost 98% of them believe in moon landing and they do respect it and they only mock the very minute community who are against it...
But in this verse God seems referring people mock in majority... Majority of the nit say it is sorcery but only very minority is telling it is a concocted story... Duped us..
So God's claim after moon landing and seeing the sign is pretty weak...
That's not moon landing at all... Whole world not mock but respect...
Are the majority of people on earth say that moon landing a sorcery? No way...
Bit off topic here but still had to speak up... I know you won't like it.. But that's my vuew...man never landed on moon and never will and never can and not a place to land... -
Peace.
May be God forgot to mention Mars landing or any other landing on any other planet.. More to come..plans are afoot.. Whatever landing take place after 1969 is more nearer to the Hour than moon landing... Wait and see they may land in some other planet moons.. So we have to shift the verse... The same people who claimed that they were successful in landing moon claims that another billions of years to go for the doom of this universe... So not that NEAR for the Hour .. isn't it?
I strongly believe that this verse 5401-02 is already happened while the Quran was revealed...
I can't prove though.. Only my personal understanding... That's all.. What i think is.. That this same moon we see now is not the same from the beginning.. I believe it was without any blemish.. I mean without any crater looking appearance on it... But.. With this verse it may have changed.. Moon split and craters appeared on it... From then onwards we see this moon with blemishes on it. People saw it(Signs) then but no one got it seriously.. They neglected it... That's my personal belief...
Man will never land on moon and moon will not get split/craters again... All happened...
Man landed and took pieces of rocks is mere fish story...
God says moon split itself ... Not man landed on it and split it by taking rocks... The word used for split can be used for a small split like a seed split earth or huge split of earth or anything itself.. -
Dear Jkhan,
5401-02 "The Hour has come near, and the moon has split. Yet if they see a sign they turn away, and they say 'A continuous sorcery."
The above two verses never talk of moon landing.... Even if take so.. Just see the next verse... It says people deny it... So.. In current day literate people almost 98% of them believe in moon landing and they do respect it and they only mock the very minute community who are against it...
Where in the Quran did you get this information from that "the majority will deny"? It is clearly not coming from 541-2 that you have quoted...Yet, you have stated it as if it's a fact.
The Quran tells us that those who have "deviated" from the Message of God are the ones who go about saying this...That they like to follow established norms (543).
So, please share, where did you learn this from that the moon landing was fake? Did you hear it from the scientists or the majority of civilized people (as you have pointed out believe in this), or, did you hear this from the mushrikeen and idol worshipers who until today cannot fathom that science is real nor that the Earth is even a globe?
May be God forgot to mention Mars landing or any other landing on any other planet.. More to come..plans are afoot.. Whatever landing take place after 1969 is more nearer to the Hour than moon landing... Wait and see they may land in some other planet moons.. So we have to shift the verse... The same people who claimed that they were successful in landing moon claims that another billions of years to go for the doom of this universe... So not that NEAR for the Hour .. isn't it?
I'm not clear what you are mentioning here. The sign that we are told to look for is the breaching of the moon - not any other planet or asteroid. Also, you have correctly pointed out that only the moon landing has been rejected as predicted in the Quran, not any other landing.
God says moon split itself ... Not man landed on it and split it by taking rocks... The word used for split can be used for a small split like a seed split earth or huge split of earth or anything itself..
I have not said anywhere that taking rocks "split" the moon. I have said that the word "inshaq" is used in the Arabic language as both "torn/breach" - we would say "the boy 'shaqa' his way to school" (the boy made his way to school) - not tore. Therefore, if I am looking for the act of "breaching/making way" towards the moon, then I have that event (discounting the rejection and false moon landing issue).
-
Dear Jkhan,
Where in the Quran did you get this information from that "the majority will deny"? It is clearly not coming from 541-2 that you have quoted...Yet, you have stated it as if it's a fact.
The Quran tells us that those who have "deviated" from the Message of God are the ones who go about saying this...That they like to follow established norms (543).
So, please share, where did you learn this from that the moon landing was fake? Did you hear it from the scientists or the majority of civilized people (as you have pointed out believe in this), or, did you hear this from the mushrikeen and idol worshipers who until today cannot fathom that science is real nor that the Earth is even a globe?
I'm not clear what you are mentioning here. The sign that we are told to look for is the breaching of the moon - not any other planet or asteroid. Also, you have correctly pointed out that only the moon landing has been rejected as predicted in the Quran, not any other landing.
I have not said anywhere that taking rocks "split" the moon. I have said that the word "inshaq" is used in the Arabic language as both "torn/breach" - we would say "the boy 'shaqa' his way to school" (the boy made his way to school) - not tore. Therefore, if I am looking for the act of "breaching/making way" towards the moon, then I have that event (discounting the rejection and false moon landing issue).
I know the topic is not relevant to moon landing... But still no harm sharing thoughts since cropped up...
Brother... God said in quran the people who reject is more and in majority.. That I don't have to emphasize...
5403 " And they DENIED and followed their inclinations. But for every matter is a settlement..
DENIERS of the SIGNS of god are always doomed..deniers are always among majority... That's why I said after witnessing moon landing which party were more? Deniers or believers? In fact believers on moon landing were more and still... While believers were more how can God claim that they deny the sign which of course moon landing..while majority on Earth has accepted moon landing strongly God doesn't need to refer the minority by saying denying ..
If in fact God refered moon landing and thus split it by verse then God instead should speak proudly saying people believed the moon landing in multitude . .. no need to say denied.. No need to call they said sorcery... God would have spoken what majority reacted after moon landing... But unfortunately what God spoke not matching to what majority reacted.. Majority accepted His sign if it was moon landing by the verse.. -
Peace jkhan.
Moon landing and majority denying are not about the same subject.
One is talking about the moon, the other is talking about the majority not believing GOD s sign/miracle when they will see it.One happened in 1969, the other(sign/miracle) happened in 1974.
Or are you taking the moon landing as the sign/miracle people saw?
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace jkhan.
Moon landing and majority denying are not about the same subject.
One is talking about the moon, the other is talking about the majority not believing GOD s sign/miracle when they will see it.One happened in 1969, the other(sign/miracle) happened in 1974.
Or are you taking the moon landing as the sign/miracle people saw?
GOD bless you.
Peace.
