Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram

Channel

Faith and philosophy

@Faithandphilosophy

On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry

1,059subscribers

+8 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1002680468494
TypeChannel
Username@Faithandphilosophy
CreatedBetween 1 March 2025 and 31 July 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded7 August 2026
Last confirmed live14 August 2026
Measurements held4
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 14 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/Faithandphilosophy

Topic

Religion — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 11 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 95% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.

Growth

1,0511,0591,0557 August 2026 — 1,051 subscribers7 August 2026 — 1,052 subscribers10 August 2026 — 1,054 subscribers14 August 2026 — 1,059 subscribers7 August 202614 August 2026
4 measurements spanning 7 days, net +8. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 1,050–1,060 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
14 Aug 2026, 02:361,059+5
10 Aug 2026, 12:581,054+2
7 Aug 2026, 21:421,052+1
7 Aug 2026, 00:181,051first reading

Engagement

20 posts held, back to 25 June 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
109.0%
avg views ÷ 1,059 subscribers
Avg views / post
1,150
9 posts measured
Reaction rate
1.90%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
9
of 20 held

ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.

ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 3 August 2026
Posts held20 (25 June 20263 August 2026)
Views total10,391
Reactions total197
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken7 Aug 2026, 00:18 UTC

Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.

Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.

Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.

Reaction mix

372 reactions across 17 posts, in 10 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 48.9% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
18248.9%
🔥8021.5%
👏4311.6%
👍328.60%
🥰143.76%
👌102.69%
🎉71.88%
😁20.538%
💩10.269%
🙏10.269%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 19 of the 20 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 372reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 25 June 2026 to 3 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Recent posts

3 Aug 2026, 07:21 UTC391 views28 reactionsread 7 August 2026

ቢግ ባንግ ቲዎሪ:- በዘመናችን [በቢግ ባንግ ቲዎሪ ስለምናምን አምላክ አያስፈልገንም] የሚለው አባባል በብዙ ቁሳውያንና ኢ-አማንያን ዘንድ በስፋት የሚደጋገም ቢሆንም ይህ አቋም የሳይንስንና የፍልስፍናን መሠረታዊ አመክንዮ በግልጽ የሳተና ጥልቅ ድንቁርናን ያዘለ ነው። በኮስሞሎጂና በአስትሮፊዚክስ የተረጋገጠው የቢግ ባንግ ቲዎሪ ዋና መሠረታዊ ግኝት አጽናፈ ዓለም ጊዜ ህዋ እና ቁስ አካል በሙሉ የመጀመሪያ መነሻ እንዳላቸውና ዘላቂ እንዳልሆኑ ማረጋገጡ ነው። በሒሳብና በሎጂክ ሕግ ደግሞ መነሻ ያለውና በጊዜ ውስጥ የተገኘ ማንኛውም ነገር አስጋኚ ወይም የመጀመሪያ መንስኤ ሊኖረው ግድ ይላል የጊዜ የሕግጋትና የቁስ አካል መነሻ የሆነው ያ የመጀመሪያ መንስኤ ደግሞ ራሱ

19👍5🥰3👏1

Signed Faith and philosophy

28 Jul 2026, 14:48 UTC718 views19 reactionsread 7 August 2026

The Sophisticated Pedant:- የእውቀት ውጫዊ ድምቀት ያላቸው የራሱን አስተሳሰብ እንደ ብቸኛ እውነት አድርጎ የሚወስድ ለመማርና ለመለወጥ በሩ የተዘጋ ነገር ግን ሌላውን ለማሸነፍ ብቻ የሚከራከር ሰው ነው። አንድ ሰው እውነቱን ሳይሆን ራሱን ለማግዘፍና ሌላውን ዝቅ ለማድረግ የሚከራከር ከሆነ Sophist ነው። Faith and philosophy! 1k ገብተናል እናመሰግናለን ቤተሰቦቻችን! https://t.me/Faithandphilosophy

🎉76🥰5👍1

Signed Faith and philosophy

26 Jul 2026, 11:56 UTC870 views24 reactionsread 7 August 2026

[ አዎ አምላክ አለ ] ​ለአምላክ ሕልውና የሚቀርቡ ሙግቶች ሲነሱ አብዛኛው ሰው የሚያስበው ስለ ጥንታውያኑ የኮስሞሎጂ ወይም የንድፍ ሙግቶች ብቻ ነው። ነገር ግን በዘመናዊው የፍልስፍናና የሂሳብ ዓለም ውስጥ የአምላክን ሕልውና በፍጹም አዲስ መነጽር የሚያረጋግጡ እጅግ ረቂቅ እውነታዎች አሉ። ከመካከላቸው የመጀመሪያው በታዋቂው ፈላስፋ ዩጂን ቪግነር እና በዘመናችን አሳቢዎች ዘንድ ትልቅ ትኩረት ያገኘው The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics ወይም የሕሳብ ረቂቅ ስምምነት ሙግት ነው። ሒሳብ በሰው ልጅ አእምሮ ውስጥ የሚፈጠር ረቂቅና ቁሳዊ ያልሆነ ጽንሰ-ሐሳብ ነው። አስደናቂው ነገር ግን በሰው አእምሮ ውስጥ በወረቀት ላይ የተሰሉ

14🔥7👌3

24 Jul 2026, 05:43 UTC859 views11 reactionsread 7 August 2026

የዝግመተ-ለወጥ እውነታ እና የመጽሐፍ ቅዱስ ትረካ! ​በአብዛኞቹ የሃይማኖት ክርክር ክበቦች ውስጥ የሚታየው ሌላው ትልቅ ድክመት የዝግመተ-ለወጥን ጽንሰ-ሐሳብ ከሃይማኖት ጋር እንደ ፍጹም ተቃራኒ አድርጎ መመልከትና በጭፍንነት ለመጣል መሞከር ነው። ዝግመተ-ለወጥ በበርካታ ጂኦሎጂካዊ ጄኔቲካዊና ባዮሎጂካዊ ማስረጃዎች የተደገፈ ሳይንሳዊ እውነታ እንጂ ዝም ተብሎ የሚናቅ መላምት አይደለም። የዝግመተ-ለወጥን ሳይንስ መቀበል ማለት አምላክን መካድ ወይም ከመጽሐፍ ቅዱስ የሥነ-ፍጥረት ትረካ ጋር ፍጹም መጋጨት ማለት አይደለም። ይልቁንም በመጽሐፍ ቅዱስ ውስጥ ያሉትን የፍጥረት ትረካዎች እንደ ምሳሌያዊና ፍልስፍናዊ መልእክቶች በመረዳት ተፈጥሮ በራሷ ሕግጋትና ሂደት ውስጥ

7🔥3💩1

Signed Faith and philosophy

23 Jul 2026, 19:51 UTC824 views7 reactionsread 7 August 2026

2. Cosmological Argument እና የሳይንስ ድንበር በWilliam Lane Craig አማካኝነት በዘመናችን ትልቅ ስም ያተረፈው የካላም ኮስሞሎጂካል ሙግት እንዲህ ነው:- A. ​መኖር የጀመረ ማንኛውም ነገር መንስኤ አለው! B. ​አጽናፈ ዓለም መኖር ጀምሯል! C. ​ስለዚህ አጽናፈ ዓለም መንስኤ አለው! በሚሉ መሠረታዊ መነሻዎች የተገነባ ነው። ይህ ሙግት በጥንታዊው Big Bang ቲዎሪ እና አጽናፈ ዓለም መጀመሪያ አለው በሚለው መላምት ላይ ቢደገፍም የዘመኑ የQuantum Mechanics እና የኮስሞሎጂ ግኝቶች ግን የሙግቱን ጥንካሬ ፈታኝ አድርገውታል። በኳንተም ደረጃ የነገሮች ያለ ምንም ቀጥተኛ መንስኤ መከሰት [Quantum Fluctuation

5🔥2

Signed Faith and philosophy

23 Jul 2026, 06:28 UTC792 views14 reactionsread 7 August 2026

የሰው ልጅ የአጽናፈ ዓለምን መገኛና የታላቁን ፈጣሪ ሕልውና ለመመርመር በሚያደርገው ጉዞ ውስጥ ለዘመናት በርካታ አመክንዮአዊና ፍልስፍናዊ ሙግቶችን ሲገነባ ኖሯል። ነገር ግን በዘመናችን ያሉ ብዙኃን ተሟጋቾች እነዚህን ሙግቶች ያለ በቂ ጥልቀትና ሳይንሳዊ ፍተሻ በጭፍንነት ሲደግሟቸው ይስተዋላል። ሲ.ኤስ. ሊዊስ [አብዛኞቹ ሙግቶች በእኔ ፊት ውሃ አይቋጥሩም በእነርሱም መስማማት ቀጣፊነት ነው] ሲል የተናገረው የሃይማኖት ተሟጋች መሆን ማለት ጥራት የሌላቸውንና ደካማ ሙግቶችን መከላከል አለመሆኑን ለማስመር ነው። እውነተኛ አመክንዮአዊ አሳቢነት ደግሞ እያንዳንዱን ሙግት ከስሜት ነፃ በሆነ ታማኝነት መመርመርን ይጠይቃል። ​1. Teleological Design Argu

11👍3

Signed Faith and philosophy

23 Jul 2026, 06:28 UTC757 views0 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Photo

Photo, posted without a caption

Signed Faith and philosophy

19 Jul 2026, 14:53 UTC≈1,280 views68 reactionsread 7 August 2026

ምን አልባት ወደ ቲኦሎጂው ለመጠጋት እየሞከርኩ እንደመሆኑ መጠን ስለ ክርስትና በጣም በሰፊው ያልተሰራበት አንድ ነገር እንዳለ እየተረዳሁ መጣሁ [እኔ ባየሁት ልክ ማለቴ ነው] እርሱም ክርስትና በዓለም ላይ ካሉ ብዙ ሃማኖቶች ብቸኛና ያ አንዱ እውነት እንደሆነ እንዴት ልናምን ቻልን? ክርስትና ብቻ እውነተኛው እውነት እንደሆነ እንዴት ልናውቅ እንችላለን? እኛስ እንዴት አወቅን? እነዚህ ላይ ብዙም ሴንስ የሚሰጡ ምላሾችና ስራዎች አላጋጠሙኝም! የናዝሬቱ ኢየሱስ ከረዳን የወደፊት ዕቅዳችን ይህ ነው ጀምረነዋል! ይህንንም ቻነል አባላት ሼር አድርጋችሁ ብታበዙልንና ክርስትናችን ላይ በሰፊው ብንወያይበት እላለሁ😄

👏3327👌5😁2🙏1

Signed Faith and philosophy

19 Jul 2026, 07:00 UTC≈3,900 views26 reactionsread 7 August 2026
File

ኒሂሊዝም_የዘመናችን_የትርጉም_አልባነት_በሽታ። ይህ PDF የተዘጋጀው ዛሬ ላይ ብዙዎቻችንን በስውር እያጠቃ ያለውን የሕይወት ትርጉም አልባነት እና አስፈሪውን የባዶነት ስሜት ወይም ኒሂሊዝምን በግልጽ ምን እንደሚመስል ለመመልከት ነው። ሰነዱ በዋነኝነት ኒሂሊዝም ምን እንደሆነ በሰው ልጅ ስነ-ልቦና ላይ የሚፈጥረውን ከንቱነት እና ከተስፋ መቁረጥ እጅ መስጠት ወጥተን በነፃነት መነሳት የምንችልበትን መንገድ ያትታል። ከዚህም በላይ በዘመናችን ያሉ ብዙ ኤቲስቶችና ላይ ላዩን ያነበቡ ሰዎች ታላቁን ፈላስፋ ፍሬድሪክ ኒቼን የዚህ ባዶነት አቀንቃኝ አድርገው የሚወስዱትን ስር የሰደደ ስሕተት በማረም ኒቼ የባዶነት ሰባኪ ሳይሆን ይህንን በሽታ ለመፈወስ የታገለ ቀንደኛ ተቃ

13🔥8👍2🥰2👏1

15 Jul 2026, 05:34 UTC≈7,200 views50 reactionsread 7 August 2026
File

[የስነ-ጽሑፍ ትችትና የመጽሐፍ ቅዱስ ተአማኒነት] ሰላም የቻናላችን ቤተሰቦች እስካሁን ድረስ እዚህ ቻናል ላይ በጽሁፍ ስንለቅላችሁና ስንወያይበት የቆየነውን በአዲስ ኪዳን የማኑስክሪፕቶች ታሪክና በጽሑፍ ትችት [Textual Criticism] ዙሪያ የተደረጉ ጥናቶችን በአንድ ላይ አቀናጅተን ወጥ በሆነ ትንተና መልክ ያዘጋጀነውን አጭርና መሠረታዊ ጥናት አሁን በPDF ይዘንላችሁ ቀርበናል። ይህ ጽሑፍ በተለይ በአሁኑ ዘመን በአማርኛ ቋንቋ በስፋት የማይገኙ ነገር ግን ለእውነት ፈላጊው እጅግ አስፈላጊ የሆኑ ታሪካዊና ስነ-ጽሑፋዊ ምላሾችን በውስጡ አካቷል። ይህ የመጀመሪያ ሥራችን እንደመሆኑ መጠን ስህተቶች ካሉም ለመታረምና ለማስተካከል ዝግጁ መሆናችንን እንገልጻ

🔥23👍118👏5👌2🥰1

Signed Faith and philosophy

9 Jul 2026, 11:23 UTC≈1,420 views20 reactionsread 7 August 2026

የሰው ልጅ በአስተሳሰብ ጉዞው ውስጥ ምንም ነገር የለም ከሚለው ጽንፈኛ ኒሂሊዝም ወጥቶ እውነት መኖሩን አልክድም ነገር ግን እውነት ለመሆኑ ምን ማስረጃ አለን? ስንት እውነትስ አለ? ወደሚለው የጥርጣሬ ፍልስፍና ወይም Skepticism መሸጋገሩ የተለመደ የታሪክ ሂደት ነው። ይህ ዓይነቱ አመለካከት በአሁኑ ዘመን በሰፊው ለሚነሳውና እውነት እንደየሰው እይታ ይለዋወጣል ለሚለው Post-modernism እና Relativism መሠረት ነው። ይሁን እንጂ ይህንን ሙግት በጥልቀት ስንመረምረው Truth and Perspective የሚባሉትን ሁለት የተለያዩ ፅንሰ-ሐሳቦች በማምታታት ላይ የቆመ መሆኑን እንረዳለን። የአንድ ነገር እውነት መሆን ወይም አለመሆን የሚለካው በሰዎች

15🔥5

Signed Faith and philosophy

8 Jul 2026, 09:46 UTC≈1,130 views20 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Ontological Nihilism የሚለው ሐሳብ እንዴት ራሱን በራሱ እንደሚያፈርስና በሎጂክ እንደማይቆም የሚያሳዩ 4 መሠረታዊ ነጥቦችን ብቻ እንደሚከተለው ላቅርብላችሁና እዩት። 1. The Paradox of the Thinker:- አንድ ሰው ምንም ነገር የለም ብሎ ለመከራከሪያ የሚሆን ሐሳብ ሲያመነጭ ያንን ሐሳብ የሚያስበው አእምሮ ራሱ መኖሩ ግድ ነው። ዴካርት እንዳለው ለመጠራጠርና ለመካድ መጀመሪያ አሳቢ መኖር አለበት። ስለዚህ ክርክሩ ራሱ የጠያቂውን መኖር ስለሚያረጋግጥ ሐሳቡ በራሱ ላይ ይወድቃል። 2. The Paradox of Communication:- ምንም ነገር የለም የሚለው ሐሳብ እውነት ከሆነ ይህንን ሐሳብ ለመግለጽ የተጠቀመባቸው ቃላት የላከው መልእ

15🔥5

Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @Faithandphilosophy. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Citation-graph rank

Citation-graph rank — 215,664 of 1,480,688entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.

Forward network

Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.

Mentions

Named by 3 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.

A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 14 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Faith and philosophy” (@Faithandphilosophy), 1,059 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Faithandphilosophy.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.