 Ayan na pa? Ang nakalibap sa pads? Kasi pagueis? May? Teresipa? Bakit? Hindi pa kong pagueis. Hindi na po kong pagueis na pagueis na pagueis na pagueis na pagueis na pagueis. Diyos pa rin. Diyos pa rin. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the philosophy of Christmas debate on the history of the Inferno Christ. My name is Nibola in each philosophy year. This activity is organized by the Philosophical Association of the Philippines and the Rationist Seminary College of Philosophy in cooperation with the Catholic Bishop's Conference and the Disiplical Commission of the Seminary. To begin, may I invite everyone to stand for the opening party and the national anthem. In the name of the Father, in the Son of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Quiet, Lord. Pure presence envelops us at the gentle winds of early morning and your constant witness will stain us, like the air that we breathe, which immediately before you ever watch full of your Son is coming. Through the small voices when I speak in the interior, with His Spirit, disturb the silence of our unbelief and in the ways of life's uncertainties, we may find confidence in you and that in every endeavor that we take, we may believe in your goodness, our friends and our home. Mayst, Lord, disturb the silence of our anguish and despair that amidst conflicts and strife among ourselves, groups and nations, we may find a part-sustainable peace and that we are seeking to model that awaits our world. We may engender in each other the hope that this world can get better. Mayst, Lord, disturb the silence of our hearted hearts that despite our short comments and failures, we may find more reasons to be patient and understanding and that no matter how much pain we have caused others, mayst, Lord, disturb us, make us question our world and thought, interrupt the comfort of ourselves and break us so that, in your silence, we may mature and intervene in fate, be fair and sensitive in hope and hold and emancipate in God especially to the poor. Mayst, Lord, we ask to Christ our Lord, Amen. May we pray to the Father and to the Son, to the Holy Spirit as it was in the beginning, now, may we go back to our ground. May we sing of wisdom, said to Lord, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Peace to the staff of our producers. First, welcome to the test. On behalf of the Lugasian Seminar in Canada's community, I would like to welcome you all, especially our speakers, to this organized debate. Our seminary colleagues is privileged to pose this activity in understanding this central mystery of our faith, the incarnation. We are in the depth of our preparation for Christmas. Today is the fifth day of our Sipang Kamin. Four more early morning masses and we are at the sector of our celebration, the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It's a heartwarming event to say at least. But a truly marvelous event happened before the birth and this is the incarnation of the Son of God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity in the womb of the Virgin Mary. In fact, this is our Gospel willing for today. The Anastasia story from the Gospel of Luke. It happened right when Mary said tiyan mii sekundum verbum tuo. In the Gospel of John, we read and the word was being fleshed. A concise account of the mystery of the incarnation. From our human reckoning we ask how is this possible? How does the divine be united to the human? Or the human be united to the divine? In this debate, let us be open, let us listen, let us learn and let us go deeper in the understanding not only of the mystery of the incarnation but in the understanding of the God as well as so much as to send us his own living and inside. So, welcome, everyone. If it be the physicians who defended the philosophers who defended his positions, may go on Dr. Mark Anthony Bezella, Associate Professor of the Lecturer and either doesn't or the Director of NASA University. Hello. Hi, everyone. Good morning. Good morning. You ready? Before we officially start we'll begin before I give you the mechanics. Can I ask everyone to please stand up? All right. So, for those who are, you guys can understand what whether or not the belief in an incarnate rise is philosophically sound. So, basically there are two positions here. It's either you say yes or no. If your position is yes then you have to sit here on this side. If you don't have a position go to the bottom. Can stay in between if you're still in the side. So, you see, on this side and this is the proside. This is the conside and in between you can have a new position. All right, let's do that. So, let's start. Can you feel me? Can you feel me? Can you feel me? Can you feel me? Can you feel me? Sige na tayo ay panlaga. Kaila mo na silangang hibikatorin. I think I have a wish this seminary for a post-unit student. We're now at the class for the first coordinator for Research and Redeemworks School of Humanities and the former BAP president from Mathinay at Manila University, Dr. Mark, associate professor, former vice dean for external affairs at Manila University and the current BAP president from Manila University, Dr. Jeremiah Benbaki. So, the first part would be context building. So, we're using a modified version of the Oxford BAP formal. So, the first part is context building. Both finalists and established context. And then, the first speaker for Dr. Bakiin will present his argument for the proposition for seven minutes. So, someone will name oh, want to recognize also officers of BAP, Mike Hernandez the philosophy department at Manila University. So, for the proposition the position speaker will present his argument for the negotiation for dedication of the proposition and then we proceed in the way from the floor. For 15 minutes, the audience will have an opportunity to join in the debate. We ask the questions that they do either one of them. Each audience member would be given a minute or answer her question. I will moderate this as well. The interlocutor can choose to answer to answer the question please. And then, the second speaker for Pro. So, we will pick one audience member for Pro and one audience member for call to serve as the second speaker on each side. So, the second speaker for Pro will present the closing statement for the proposition. So, the objective of the second speaker is to close. And then, the second speaker for the opposition will present their closing statement. Each will be given three minutes. Then, you have the rebuttal for ten minutes. The first speaker for Pro and opposition will engage in interpellation of each mother's arguments. The opposition will be first. The last is to close the debate. For ten minutes, you, the audience will be given time to deliver the speech. So, you guys function like a junior. So, you will be given time ten minutes to cast your votes by taking a seat in the position that you think is right. So, this is your initial sitting arrangement. And then after that, you will deliberate. And then, if you were convinced for instance, if audience member sitting here convinced the right, and then I will count how many seated here, how many seated there, then I will declare who the winner is. So, first before we build context you want to pick pick your second speaker from this side for any volunteer. Anyone who wants to volunteer is a second speaker. One Two Three Any seminarian wants to volunteer Kam'ya naman Kam'ya naman tamang gaya. Doko yung Raven? Mikulaw, can you volunteer someone? Second speaker. M.Change How about from this side, the phone anyone who wants to volunteer is Raimann What's Reymar? Reymar? May Reymar. Reym? Mark. Mark. That's a pro. Reymar. Pro si kuyaglian. Okay. Antilin. A. It's Reymar. I don't know if they're minyo. FJPs, sit here. Look. Please sit here. I think we need to clarify two things here. First, what is this dog, Reymar? What do we do? I think we need to clarify two things here. First, what is this dog, Reymar? What is this dog, Reymar? What do we mean by what is this mystery of the incarnate Christ? First, and the second, we need to understand what does it mean for anything, for a belief to be to the self in the sound. So, this would be the paramilitarist. Okay. Let's start with Dr. Galano. What is this mystery of the incarnate Christ? Pagkat, Sharia, sasawikang ingles. Antis, Reymar, kanyang pagkamin ka sasawikas. Pagkat, pagkandigang, salay ako. Grape. Pong Charles Sedon, na nagsasabi na si Christo, iisang tao. At sabi rito, sabi kang Latin ay. At babasayin ko sa Latin sa pagkat. Malahasa ko sa Latin at mahinatong si JJ. Atas, unong edweng ko kung fitere fil yung edominong, nostong yesong, kristong, konsonanter, omnes, nocemus, yun din perfectum, and dey-tate, and bababla. At hominem, verum yundum, exanima, rational, na naniniwala sila na may isang nag-iisang nagura ang dios. At ang kagenaban ng kanyang pagkataw at pagka-dios ay ganap na ganap. At sabi ng mga parin ng konseryo, itulaw ay at unang at may katangiyan nito. At akatangiyan nito ay in duwabus na turis, in confusion. Hindi pwede ang pagkiniwala ay at ang kailangan hindi iwiwala ay in divise, in sepabi, biliter, adnustianto. Hindi pwede hindi iwiwala ay in mutability, indivisibility, inseparability. At ang katangiyan nito ay nag-iisa sa inisang tao, at ang ginamit na salita ay isang persona, at ang katangiyan nito ay hipostasis para na palataya ang Romano-Patola Poster. At sa ganang katangiyanan, hindi maalip iwala ay ang dalawang katangiyan niyan na ay kataul Jesus. Manaming sa namagkinog. Ok. Doctor Mokim, nagsiging ka ay ay? Yeah, so, may Ivey. May Ivey? May Ivey that marks it? Each understand the reason. Hindi, eh. So, in a pigment naman kaya ninyang Doctor Galano regarding nanyang Doctor, we're accepting that Ignatial meetings at Christ as a jewel in one. He is both human and divine, and human means utility and separability and so on, and kasi ang bahay ang yung different. So I really tried. Okay, just to briefly sum up, these are the three propositions. Jesus Christ is truly divine, Jesus Christ is truly human, and Jesus Christ is a single individual, and then give up to God, the Son. Those three propositions. Okay, you're in agreement? Yes. Okay, all right. Now, let's define philosophically sound. Dr. King. Please start. Usually nabat-task pagparenta ni Dr. Taranong. So what we think about philosophical sound is in terms of certain characteristics of belief. So it's a normative claim about certain sorts of belief. For belief to be sound, it must at least be true. At least be coherent and be justified. So what have that evidence been made? It must be true. Okay. Now, let's be coherent. Tapar ganan na dito siya? In behind ng nakakatwiran, yung bagay di sa binang norma, e? Ya, baidin na din na din na. In behind ng nakakatwiran, yung bagay di sa binang norma, e? Okay. Okay. So kaya kag-infin ang kag-infinang norma, e? So kaya kag-infinang norma, e? So kaya kag-infinang norma, e? Okay. You also have also a criteria of coherence. Pagsinabi mo, coherence ibig sabihin ay mutugon tayo sa principle ng walang pakakak, patutunggali, or principle of non-praktiction. Ibig bang sabihin nito na may dalawang katangian na hindi maalimansabay sa isang natura o persona. Singuro ba din natin-clinify ang nature sa argument sa? Kasi kung sa principle ng non-coherence, hindi po hindi magsabay ang dalawang pagay. Bu-bu-po. But I guess we can agree on that principle of non-praktiction. So if it violates this principle, then it's non-coherent. Tapos, let's say, file law of contradiction. Ah, okay. So we are ingredient and disturbance. Everyone is here? Yes. Okay, you guys ready? Okay? Ang aralipong pause before we start. Seven minutes. Percent your argument for proposition. Your time starts now. Ani ba, okay? Merry Christmas! Okay, your time starts now. Manags ang joss at nagsakatawang tao sa isa sa mga paniniwala ng simbahan romano o fololito. Bunin bago may intimikan o bago mangang pagustapan ang pagsasakatawang tao o ang joss, nakailangan muna natin unawain kung ano napa ang isensyan ng joss. Ano ang kalaman ng tao sa isensyan ng joss? Na-sabi na nisanto Tomas sa pambungan ng ikadlong tanong bupul sa isensyan ng joss, kaya hindi kaya ang alamin ng tao ang joss sa sarili niyang. Ang walang hanggang isensyan ng joss ay nang pakalawa, upang masakot at napakataas, upang maabot ng kakayangan umalam ng isip ng tao. Ito ay isa sa mga saligang turun nisanto Tomas. Gayon paman, sinapiti niya na ang aking isip ay ayon sa nikas ng kaya dito ay kaya papahayad ang isensyan ng joss. Kabang hindi maunawaan ng isip ng tao ang kabuan ng isensyan ng joss sa kanang kasaduloy ang buhay, maali naman niya itong marating sa pamamaginta ng pagpapahayad ng joss. Unan natin surihin ang saligang pananaw na ito. Hindi kaya unawain ng isip ang joss sa sarili niya. Takasan niyan sinabi sa Sumat Neologi, na imposible na aking maglinikang isip, bat ay salikas na kaya dito ay makikita ang isensyan ng joss. At kaya na sinabi na niya sa artikolo 12 na ang ating natura na isip ay may kaalamang tumutukoy sa joss, malinaudi niyan sabi na ang mga kaalamang ito ay hindi na nga ngaulogan na nang unawain na natin ang isensyan ng joss. Kung ganon, imposible ang makita at mga unawaan natin ang isensyan ng joss sa buhay na ito sa materyan na daimti. Ano ang dahilan? Malawa ang paliwan na hibinigay niya. Ngunit ayon sa kanya, may kaalaman na nag-anap kung ang bagay na alam ay ming iral sa ming alam. Ibig sa iin, kung ituturing lang natin ang personal ng Cristo, binang obheto ng ating kaalaman, nilalagay natin siya at minaalis natin sa kanya, ang kanyang pagkakao, at ibiginuturing natin siya bilang obheto ng pakaalam. At bilang obheto ng pakaalam siya ay nawawalan ng pagkakao, at siya kanyang kadahilanan nawawalanin ang kanyang pagkajoss. Ang isang bagay ay alam ay ayon sa tunang itong pag-iral sa labas na isi. Kung ito ay alam sa pamamagita na isang katulad, si Militudo na ang pot sa pagay mismo nawawalan din mismo ang pagkajoss ng joss. Ibig sa iin, kung ang pamamaraan natin na pagunawa sa joss ay gamin ang kaisipan ng tao, ibig sa iin gaya rin ang kakayahang sa gipin ng isit ng tao, nag-inobhetonin ang joss. Ang pag-alam na alimang ni kakayamang umalam ay ayon sa kuri ng pag-iral nito. Kung ang kuri ng pagkiral ng bagay na aalamin ay lampas sa uri ng pagkiral ng umaalam, ang aalaman ng bagay na iyon ay lampas sa likas nakakayahan ng umaalam, ibig sa iin kung ang pamamaraan ang pagunawa natin sa pagkatao at pagsasang tao ng joss ay bilang tao lamang, hindi talaga natin na sasakit ang kanyang pagkajoss. At sa ganyang pamamaraan, tayo kumikiling lamang sa isang natura at isinasat nabi ang isapang natura at ilang banan na natura. Ang esensya ng joss ay hindi maaaring maging obheto na kaalaman ng isit niya at ang sarili niyang pagmemeron. Ibig sa iin, kapag pinagusapan na natin ang misterio ni Jesus at na kanyang pagkatao, hindi ito maaaring pagusapan, gamit lamang ang ating mga natural na lohika sa pagkatwinawasa ng misterio ito, ang ating kakayahan umisit lamang sa pamamagitan na lohika. Ibigin sa iin, nakapagpinipilit natin ang misterio ito, gamit ang kakayahan ng isip ng tao, ang nakalisi natin ang kanyang pagkajos at iingingin nilamang natin siya pinang obheto ng kaalaman at dahil riyad, ito na'y at ito sa nga intindihan. Doon sa pagkunaon yun, kung nais itindihin kung paano nga balikaroon ng dalawang nikas at ang aking mong kaya ay, kinakailangan itindihin natin na ang kontekso ng posibilidad at imposibilidad at kinakailangan lamang sa tao sa pagkatang ating materyal nakalagayan ay laging tahapulong na sa kung ano ang posibli sa aking. Ngunit hindi ganyan ang lohika ng jos, kaya ang teyo lohikal ang pag-uunawa ng inkarnasyon. Ibig sabihin, lohikan ng jos at hindi lohikan ng tao ang magiging batayan sa pag-uunawa ng jos kaya yung pag-uunawa sa harap ng lubos at na posibilidad na walang position lamang nating na intindihan kung anong ibig sabihin ng jos na gana na nakapakata. You can perceive it. Ang kaalaman ng isensyan ng jos na ito ay mahalmari na mga ating matamu sa tinatawad na Shenshyang Yata o ang mismoong pagharap at pagmalas ng mga pinagpala ng jos sa karalasan ito ang mismoong isensyan ng jos ang nakitita ng isip na mga pinagpala. Ngunit gaya ng nakita na natin, hindi kaya ng likas nakakayalan ang isip na makita ang isensyan na ito, kaya kinakailangan palakasin ang isip na na tao sa pamamagitan ng grace ng jos upang maginsapak ang kakayahan ito unawarin ang walang hanggang isensyan ng pagkatahaw ng jos. Itong karagdagang lakas sa kakayahan ng isip, ay tinatawad natin iluminapsyo gan ganyod paman ang karalasan ng Shenshyang Yata na kabilang buhay ay hindi nangangundukan ng lupusan at ganap na pagunawa sa isensyan ng jos. Ang jos lama ang ming kakayahan unawarin ng lupusan ang kanyang walang hanggang isensyan. Dyan, sa puntumyang, sa pagunawang yan, mga aring latitan o kumagatman lang sa pagsasakatawang tawang tawang jos. Kaming salamat, Dr. Rockin, let me know when you're ready. Time starts. Let us thank our friend from Canigolan for offering a really interesting argument for your proposition. Dad, ang Shenshyang yung ay proposition in Karling Crisis Philosophic in Sanan didi-defining or didi-defend niya. Didi-defend niya ang Shenshyang at we can only know God or didi-define Now, you offered my argument for the telecom proposition. That is, how do you position in Karling Crisis Philosophic at your sound? So, I'm seeking the division. So, the basic argument is simple. A philosophical sound may be used at least cohere. Controletory beliefs are incoherent. Now, the belief in an incarnate crisis implies contradiction. So, therefore, belief in an incarnate crisis philosophical answer. So, that's a basic argument. So, why should we accept the premise that philosophical sound beliefs are at least cohere? Well, I'll give you a reductional argument. Now, suppose that sound philosophically sound belief is incohere. Suppose, that we know that male fixings exist or that there is a greatest national number. Suppose that they are philosophically sound. Now, sure, these things are not philosophically sound. Since, there are no real fixings because fixings are if you know the process. And there cannot be a greatest national number for, as we all know, national numbers are infinite. So, philosophical soundness implies cohere at first glance. Now, this reduction realize an undefined notion of cohereance, which I'll cash on in terms of truth and credence, or infancy, and continuance. These are really the most democratic truths. So, let's define cohereance of beliefs in person. Now, this implies that there is at least one possible scenario where a belief is very significant. So, suppose that we're talking about talking boundaries. Talking boundaries exist. Now, that's a cohereance belief because we can think of a scenario where there are talking boundaries. Imagine a shrink. As a shrink, siya na, ilita ka sinira. So, in that scenario, there's at least one talking boundary. On the other hand, there are male fixings. That's the cohereance. Since, there's no possible scenario that female falsies are made. On the other hand, we define beliefs in terms of the whole units of beliefs in terms of credence, or in the recent what we did in belief. Suppose that we're talking about talking bigs, insisting talking bigs, then it's cohereance because however you probable what that may be, you can still assign a positive non-zero probable benefit. So, I'm thinking about credence in terms of probable benefits. Conversely, the belief that there is a greatest emotional number is going to cohereance since, given what we know about natural numbers, there is a cashing out cohereance of beliefs in terms of truth and credence, which are understanding notions. We'll be used in building up the argument for the philosophical unsoundness of the anchor of credence. So, let's see that. So, cohereance can cohereance? Why? Well, that can be two arguments there. Now, these are responses that you know which are and you know which are the beliefs that something is and is not the types. Alternatively, it implies that something has and does not have the same property or certain property. So, the whole that it is raining and not raining here now and to assert that a car is both blue and not blue is contradictory. Why? Why hachawan the liquidity because you're asserting something at the time. Now, why is such a belief in cohereance? Well, the belief of contradictory statement implies that a belief cannot be true or a belief cannot be assigned a positive problem. So, suppose we have a contradictory statement by it is raining and not raining here now and this is cohereance then there is a possible scenario where it is raining and not raining here at the same time. Now, obviously, you can't have that scenario so the belief that it is raining and not raining is true. Unfortunately, if you have a belief that it is raining and not raining here now if this cohereance you can assign a probability a possible probability to that. However, you can't assign such a probability assignment because there's simply no chance that it is both raining and not raining here now. So, how do you make your statements Now, given this characterization of incohereance and contradiction what does this imply about our belief about the intermediaries? Well, I'll say a pressure component implies an opportunity. Why? But because we believe the price is bought truly divine and truly human implies the price is fully human and fully divine. That is if price is fully human then he has all essential properties of Europeans and this includes infinite, fallible and so on so forth. If price is fully divine at the other hand he also has all properties of the divine that is being mutable, infinite, infallible. So prima facie the belief that price is bought human and divine seems reasonable but implies a contradiction. Let's see the contradiction if price is human then he is fallible by definition if price is divine then he is infallible by definition if price so since price is both human and divine price is both fallible and infallible. That's a contradiction at giving the argument it's philosophical at some because it's a nuclear but now so what will my dear friend from Kali Boon reply or say about this he might say why? Coherency government is not a government for philosophical purpose even though at the young well if this is the option that he'll go to he has the word initial that who here it is is not necessary for kind of sentence but the other hand he might accept who here it is but he'll define it in some other way not in person true and important but again if this is his view then he has walking for it as well. Third he might qualify the doctrine of incarnational subhinia then divine and divine in terms of some kind sort of qualify respect but again the good generate another kind of paradox place last finally he might just wave his hand like he's doing kanino and say the doctrine should only be accepted as a matter of fact divine revelation now if this is his move then I can trace my hand as well okay thank you very much all right now can I invite both speakers my friend raising a point of clarification I'll give you 30 seconds before we start the Q&A and give 30 seconds for each speaker to clarify their position basically I want to when I ask the speaker to explain why he thinks that the belief in the incarnate in Christ is philosophically after the land 30 seconds if philosophical soundness of the incarnate in Christ is actually moving that it's a singular argument applicable only to one person and not to any other person and therefore any underreferences to any earthly reality does in fact evade the point secondly if we understand Christ as an object of cognition then he may only arise an object of thought never of a person a person reduced to an object can only be understood in terms of its attributes and these attributes are always already separated from each other not unified in one person thank you doctor 30 seconds so I'll just explain the argument philosophical sound belief is a peaceful period according to belief is ego period belief in an incarnate in Christ implies a contradiction it's contradictory hence belief in an incarnate in Christ is yourself so that's what I say thank you doctor now we're open now run up close we're over the audience is given 15 minutes to ask questions so this is how we're going to do it I'm going to ask from this side you can ask one person give an opportunity for one then next next so no follow up questions okay so 15 minutes start now anyone from this side you can ask a question to any of the speakers you know what cut the time please let's give them five all right five minutes hindi 可以 hindi hindi hindi hindi hindi nd hindi hindi hindi hindi hindi hindi hindi hindi Gusto kong magtelong kaso. Good morning po. We are Seminarians from the Dominican Order. So, in the beginning, the point that it to reside was stating that incarnation is philosophically unsound. So, the plant amount of saying that resurrection is also philosophically unsound because there will be no resurrection without incarnation. And how will you negate that saying? When we say that historically, resurrection happened from the dead. So, thank you po. So, must everybody find the speakers? We may hope not to answer the question. So, it's okay. Because there's some addiction in Tao that's supposedly between reincarnation and resurrection. How did that happen? I could upset the resurrection idea. It's philosophically unsound. So, there's no contradiction in someone dead or so. And in a world where we don't have any contradiction. Pero, I'll just deny immigration. If it's not because of this immigration. So, I'll say, poble, what's your description? May pangayin na nanguha. Okay. But no contradiction. So, the principle of the non-condition is just the idea that here's a statement. Okay. If you assert that statement at its negation, like to say that it's raining and automating, then you have to negate it yourself. So, that's a no-no basic object. Which kalano. And how is that principle that I applied? Because you can't think of a scenario over a name. So, if you can't think of a scenario over a name. That's something personal. Alright. Question from this side. Engage the speakers. Sorry. No one is. Alright. So, I'm going to answer this one. On the auto side, since I am just wondering, because you use the principle of no appearance or no appearance. When you speak of crisis at the same person and it's this same person experiences two different events. So, one person experiences two different events which is the incarnation, the birth, and the resurrection. And it sounds funny. It sounds funny. You affirm resurrection, but you deny incarnation. So, in such statement, you have been in Kulira. How is it being in Kulira? Yeah. Because if you speak of one singular person, this is Christ. And this one singular person expresses two events which are incarnation and resurrection is using the principle of coherence and coherence. But in stating that he affirms resurrection is and then denying incarnation is being in Kulira. So, that's funny. So, the question is, do you find any coherence in that position? Yeah. You affirming resurrection and denying incarnation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that wonderful question. Just a bit of clarification. So, I'm denying incarnation because in Kulira, if crisis to the human and divine at the same time, then you are accepting that he is mutable in the human and imbutable in the divine at the same time. That's a contradiction. So, I deny the philosophical soundness of recognition because of that. Now, I'm affirming resurrection because I'm affirming resurrection there. So, I'm defining connection in terms of coherence. So, I'm going to explain what my coherence is. Can you think of a scenario in a ten person? That's supposed to be Christ. That's supposed to be Christ. Amatay siya, at ang muli mo na mula yan. Ubala ni mo contradiction. Pero, since namin mo hanyin ui, tika na. You need to accept incarnation as well. No, we can deny that because I, for one, I'm not by women, Catholic. So, since I'm going to defend sound for incarnation, it's a matter of fame, perhaps, so, I'm affirming new. Pero, that's not an issue at all. So, this will be sincronized. So, na hanyin na sincronized. Purely invite, cash down the next day. Or, purely how much tapos na next day. So, like, actually, last video and every scene na pala. And then, I'm going to accept as a matter of thought. Pero, there's a possible scenario where you get we, same person. Ako, tapos, malelesari kawalina ay, mga mayan na. So, in the next 10 years, pero na now, malelesari kawalina, that's possible, that's coherent. Pero, hanyin na ako incarnate. Hindi naman ako incarnate na. Ay, sa dino. Hindi ako incarnate na. Hindi ako incarnate na. Hanyin. Hanyin. Hanyin. Hanyin. Hanyin. Hanyin. Hanyin. peyang yung lhogic. And, sa kaicas, in regards to that's yung biop интересно, Can you stop me and verify the first question? Can you restate that, please? Ano po? Sintok sa Payas seems to say that that cannot do contradictory meaning and that cannot do which logic? Logically contradictory. Okay. The question is what do you are you are you saying that that na-beliefing my posthumst is beyond what is possible anything in the context that's there for us to understand. Okay. Thank you. First and foremost, we need to understand the nature of God as a simple reality. In a simple reality, God cannot be understood in terms of attributes that are simply or merely external to God such as when a million years ago, the very existence of God is sufficient and enough for you to be God. And therefore the attributes are merely secondary properties to it so that to even argue that God cannot be God precisely because of two conflicting or contradictory attributes is to already create two separate realms for God and the attributes to exist together. It goes back to the problem in Plato when he says it's good because it's loved by the gods or it's loved by the gods because it's good thereby creating a property totally separate from divine nature which is not very possible when we start talking about God especially to Thomas' understanding when even prior to Thomas handsome already in the prosthodial argued that two conflicting properties can in fact comprehend allow you to arrive at the comprehension of God handsome at a certain point in chapter 14 of the prosthodial arises a point where he recognizes that every attempt to think of God or to reduce God to merely cognitive terms always arises a contradiction. That's what he basically releases as a second thing for God in chapter 15 contrary to our understanding that all that he releases is mitomized commentary or that which natin greater can be conceived o yung walang nakayigigin na mahalimisipin because the thing nya doon sa chapter 15 sinabi nya that God is even greater than anything that can be conceived or kumayos ko ang paritari po sinabi o yung masigit pa sa lahat na mahalimisipin So, pagtiti na mo sa ganang karagay ang makikita mo na kaya isipin ang tawang God kaya nang maratin ang sang pagunawan ng God ngunin hindi gana ang pagunawan ko at doon lang ang yung sinasabi ko kaya kung pagusapan lang ang natin dito ay kung kwa nangyari naysay sa imutable reality at mutable reality that's like reducing the empire, divine nature to merely to conflicting and contradictory terms why, at the same time, affirming is very nature which is existence Thank you, Doctor Kanana. I accept one more question for Doctor Kanana. In regards to the ways in Thomas Pines sinabi nyo ko na may cannot know who God is but we can know what a who God is na so we can have knowledge of God in terms of musikong sino yung hindi so one is one of the attributes he gave to God is mutable it's not a positive attribute but a negative attribute that is not mutable but human is clearly mutable change of attitude so there seems to be kung pagusapan na Doctor Kanana what is the question? The question is how could you I mean, given that Saint Thomas Pines actually gave a certain knowledge of God which is a denial of knowledge and human human clearly exists something that is not mutable for instance how could you recognize that? Thank you, Doctor Kanana. May I remind you I will answer So ang mga huwi ang pagmemero na hindi ang folks at Jaws ay makititan natin kung kitatapua natin sa kanya ang mga kong posisiyon pagbabago at ibabak kususulihin natin ang mga kanyang koanong ang folks sa kanya Ayope Saint Thomas sinabi nyan ang pinakaunang katamin nyan ang Jaws ay simplicitas day kapayatan ng Jaws at kapayatan hito hindi mahati maarin hati-hatiin gaya nang ang binagawa ng aking munti ang kaibigan Perfection di day o or day o nakate ay o payat ng katalihan ng Jaws bilang day you sit kubike kaya ang hindi namin napadyan ay hindi mahari hindi hindi hindi hindi bilang bahagi nakisang kong posisiyon wala ang bahagi o kong posisiyon ang pagmemeron ng Jaws dahil ang pagmemeron ng Jaws ay ang isensya niya mismo at yun ang aking sinasabi kanina ba ay hindi mahari hindi at hindi ang pagkunaw sa Jaws sa pagkat ang gawin ito ay makarat ay para nalamang natin siyang binawang obheto na pwede nating at hindi ganoon ang isensya day kaya isensya day ang aking sinimulan sa pagkat ang pagkunaw ng mga katagian ng Jaws na hindi wala sa isensya ito ay langang hulugan lang ang isang logica na kong tradisyon at yun ang kasi kong kayaan mo itiningin ang pagkataw ng Jaws bilang isang pangumusa os logical statement gamit lang ang yun hindi gamit ang binagusakan ito persona ang binagusakan ito at bilang persona sa letang katawang tao flesh ang gamit sa letas sa hindi body and the word was made flesh ibig sabihin ng karaon ng kagana pangin pagkataw sa salitan at sa kataloka ng ang sa salitan ang girego Reima hindi logos hindi namin sa lita at pag sinabi Reima ibig sabihin kabukuan pag hindi pwede hindi hindi hindi hindi hindi nga wala yung kaning kailiging simple namin salaman pagkatas raise your hand please if you have any more questions raise your hand okay so we're officially closing this portion now we're we will give three minutes for the second speaker for our round of applause for statement for the proposition and change good morning everyone me and my companion have formulated two points for this proposition first one knowledge of God is difficult to understand by men as we all know based on the history of the middle class this was already promulgated and proven by Saint Augustine and Thomas Saint Augustine for him is difficult to understand the nature of God or the windy and mighty God because at his experience in the mid-suring he wanted to discover people understanding about the volatility in which Saint Augustine himself did not fully understand the nature of God second was about Saint Thomas Aquinas Saint Thomas Aquinas buried his right because for him the knowledge of God is difficult to understand Aside from the ordinary men can also have this insight that knowledge of God is difficult to understand ordinary men for us or laymen ordinary men can have these clips that knowledge of God is incomprehensible difficult to have grasp understanding that's why there are some people who become atheists for him because knowledge of God for them are difficult to understand atheists the knowledge of God because for them there is no God and they use because there is a God second proposition proposition is to be mindful of God is inseparable therefore it puts contradiction why? because if the nature of God is divine then they put limits on God based on Christian tradition sending limits on God is becoming a contradiction God can become human only because it eliminates the nature of God if God is divine only God's nature is inseparable therefore God is 100% human and 100% divine can also be God is considered man is considered as a contingent being and is different from a necessary being man is a contingent being therefore he is only a human and God is not a necessary being therefore he can be thank you so much Mr. Absent in this proposition the belief in the incarnate Christ is a philosophical song is what improves our song because it was incoherent and what is coherent coherence is the belief or the truth that what we call then what he said before is that the downing speaking downing you may think of speaking downing like in the strike right? and then you may think and then it's hard to think of the immitability and the mutability at the same time in my person right? like the contradictory belief is incoherent that's why hence contradictory belief is philosophy and sound para tagali ko na para masalino para para kung sabi siya kung pre-soffered song it must be coherent e kaso yung coherent na yun please e di anong siya habito po ang radig ba no tagit ko yung mutability and mutability yung jesus incarnate and hand and the belief in the incarnate Christ implies a contradiction hence the belief of the incarnate Christ is philosophy and sound first to approach the okay so I will give for this portion we will have a lot of 10 minutes for this portion and it's right to extend it if necessary okay so this is the interpolation portion where the speakers will now engage in the decision bill we ask questions to the okay okay okay but we have limited knowledge kasi we are since we have limited knowledge in God as the object of knowledge is really unfathomable we cannot have knowledge what do you mean sa kimi mo na we cannot have knowledge there's a you can stream from limited to there's no knowledge of God what I'm saying is that we have a limited understanding of God and limit means that at a certain point our comprehension of God is limit is somehow at one or another constricted by what is rationally conceivable forms okay so we have established according to Dr. Michael that how the knowledge of God I don't want to say I don't want to say I don't want okay so we have some knowledge quite a bit so we have some knowledge of God so we have knowledge of God you said that we cannot know that via logic you can say that you are God that you are not human okay I think you are God means that God has its own ways of doing things and God's operations does not necessarily mean compliance with human reason or better yet that God's that the possibility for us humans is always So again, they're limited by what is compared to the possibility which is from God. Alright, so again, we have established that we have some knowledge of God. Sorry, I'm working to give you five minutes. So we have some knowledge of God, pero damit si Girl ay naysong mga alahit. Pagalapit niya para sa hadit, dila din siya mga kids ka nag-agagalapit kasi hi-operate, supposedly, in some plane that we can never really aware and did it ng hi-to-know, operates ng gagawit. Siya pre, kuyit ay ring sa paka-kaya ng mga dipintang isit na pao, ay lagi higit pa sa lahat ng kaya ngisit na pao. doon namin nakipita kung paano yung patakalaban nung patuloyin na pagpapapresensya, pagpapapapintan, pagpapapalang na nandos at sabahin naman yung kailanganin paaw sa gilin ko. Okay, can you have two minutes? Okay. Okay, so... So, talaga. Iman si God is that which tiny greater can be would see power in your cell. Pero na along natin yun, that God is that which nothing can, even a fool can have. Kaya kaya yung kailanganin, hindi naman yung kailanganin. God is that which tiny greater can be would see power in your cell. Nagigets na niyan nila. Agigets na nila. So, yung accent na may mga truths nila. Ang mga tayo, file hour, ah, yung taon doon kakwira sa paka-kakwira ngayon. Kaya yun, may truths nil nasin sabiw na hindi pa-arong ng kakwira. So, yung sa pibigin, yung kakwira, yung da-arong ng katatokanan ng kakwira ay upos dun sa katatokanan na ay hindi na-arong ng kakwira. Hindi upos. Hindi. Hindi na-arong. So, yung sa pibigin, yung hindi na di ma-arong sa ayan. Hindi nga ma-arong niyan. So, katatokanan na siya nang hindi mo ma-arong. Katatokanan na siya. So, yung naman natin ng Igoy Intervention. Kailangan na niligay. Okay, so, kung to do yun, hindi sa pibigin, tapat, sa sabi mo, hindi naman upos yung truths ka-nahibag by naturalism. Tapos yung truths na hindi mo ma-arong at may naturalism, at may faith, or by different motivation, different motivation. Namin mga bagay na hindi sa kaya patinan ako. So, kaya patinan ako ay gaya nung sa kondisyon, na nipaw na niligay, patin doy clear and distinct. At, at least, lahat ngayon ng kung ano yung nilagay sa harap natin, ob, malatin, at gaya ng objekt nung siya, nilalagay natin sa harapan natin, at sabihin natin, sa bakat nilalagay natin sa harapan natin, ay kaya natin siya, nilawang iwagin, natin-katigin, natin-ditigin, gaya nagsang oketo na nagsarap natin. Kung pipilitin natin, ng jos ay sa oketo lang ang sabangan na tao, mananatiling ang jos ay oketo langang, at gaya nagsagihin, nagiging gamit lang ang jos, at yun ang sinasabi ko, anina pa, may hindi maa-arin unawain ng jos, kami ng pagunawa na tao, sa bakat ang gawin iyon, ay gawin oketo lang ang jos, na hindi maa-arin maniakong sa jos. I give it na for one more question. Okay, ayin ka close ko lang ay. So, Give it time to close. Ah, sige. So, sinasabi nga ng objekt, ini siya objekt ng paper, so ay, sinasabi mo rin, na yung katatokahan natin, na hindi maa-arok ng tao, kasi hindi may katatokahan natin, nang kailangan ng... So, Give it time to close. I'm getting it. I'm getting it. Get there fast. Thank you. I give it time to close the conversation. So, sinasabi ko, kumimang mga bagay ng alam tayong todo, ay, misokas, tapos, nipangatatahalan naman, ikinanin ba lalaman, or, hindi may katatokahan natin, kasi higit jay. Pero, inakitalis ko pa rin, So, kung ganoon, binalalaman ka, hindi mo nalaman. Tradition, sa pagkat hindi, may hindi ka nalalaman, sinasabi mo naman, na mas higit, pasal, ano mga kailangan, maratin, ang katwiran natin, ang patayan ay hindi tao, ang katwiran, ang patayan ay jos. So, hindi mo kailang sabihin, sa pagkat hindi tato sa katwiran mo, na hindi tato na rin ang katwiran, sa pagkat ang badayan ng katwiran, ang emlex eternalis, ang ratsiyo ng jos, hindi ratsiyo ng tao, magbabago ngayon na paggunawa natin, kung ang patayan ay... Thank you, Dr. McKinnon. Thank you, Dr. McKinnon. Thank you, Dr. McKinnon. Thank you, Dr. McKinnon. At tinanangangang mo ba, yung paggunawa, na may unay nanilalang, at yung ninalangdeko, ay ang tao, yung jos. At pake nalifangin, yung pake nalang mga, hindi nalaman. At you have set the proposition that there is such a thing, or there's someone that is called the incarnate Christ and that this incarnate Christ is one, it's real, and it's... and was, if you're understanding, reborn at least. No. No, in all the things. In all the things. So there's no Christ. So there's no incarnate Christ. Yes, po. So... When we... May Maria na-harding na daway, po ang johan ang jos yung. So you believe in that credibility that sacred scriptures provide because it's necessary. Because you use it as a basis for moving to your point. I entertain the possibility that it's true. I entertain the possibility that it's true. I entertain the possibility that it's true. When you say that is the possibility sufficient to argue for the existence of a certain Jesus of Nazareth. It's possible. Okay. But what is the nature of these Jesus of Nazareth? Puli yung man? Pinangangksha bilang kaaw, yes. So puli yung man. I want to go into interpolation. Somebody asked whether these Jesus can possibly resurrect. What? How is it possible that somebody who is puli yung man basically resurrect from the dead? Kung babanaya na di yung people yung sila sa mga si ba ay puli yung man. But Lazarus never resurrected from the dead. He resuscitated from the dead. Resuscitation. Resuscitation. Resuscitation. Let's clarify. I'm happy if you can ask a question. So, we're making a distinction between resuscitation and death. I don't know what to say. He has been dead for 30 days. But he was resuscitated? He died eventually. The resurrected one never died the second time. So puli yung resurrection. So we can't be resurrected as well. Again, warning. I'm not going to be. No, it's because I know the people who died earlier. That's how we're going to be resurrected. You will be the number one. So divine intervention all of us have been throughout history chose one man to simplify. I don't know. I didn't know what you were saying. So it's a part of the participation in this man's resurrection. That's the next question because it's a part of the divine resurrection. So how can you be resurrected? One man, one man. So you're the number one. So you're the number one. So you're using the argument of God and God. So you choose this random man. So you choose this random man. So we choose a safe one. So you choose this one. So resurrection prior to Christ. We are a huge community in one person for the existence of one complete person with all the attributes in that one person. So that the very are we not denying even one person here to Christ? Or is there a Christ? And what you said already that there is Christ and that... ... ... ... ... ... So to even argue for the existence of Christ on the basis of the Bible, are you thereby accepting the Bible as a logical coherence statement of truth? It's awesome. Thank you. Point of clarification what do you mean it's possible? It's a possible scenario where all the things in the Bible watch. Round of applause for your closing. So let's start with it's time to be off. Alright. This won't take long. Oh, is this what you said that we don't know or even the knowledge that we know about God? No, except that we really don't know and we're just here to think that Christ is human and divine. So, I agree entirely, Dr. Galan that we have limited knowledge of God. That's the reason. Since we're arguing for the proposition that we're moving on in burning Christ at least for some reason it might be the case that we just don't know whether what I'm showing is just a simple argument. What's a simple argument? Ang paniniwala na yan is ang Incarnate Christ Ang Incarnation. Biyong merong isang tao na pwede magtago pero kiba-intensyan na hindi pwede magtago So, it's a contradiction. So, it's a contradiction. How can we go here again? How can we go? How can we think? How can we look into the world and not into the world? So, if that's the case, it seems like that Incarnate Christ is still from the soft view on the side. I'm not saying that it's not true but see, you can even be parents of matter and faith and not physical friends. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. We should have to make the same mind as Christ in the form of God. Jesus did not really believe in God. It is in this context, therefore, that we need to understand that divine movement who in this extreme generosity shocks us by sharing our very mind. It is in this context that we need to understand that it shames or puts to shame human logic. Precisely because of what Christ has coherence and incoherence God does not. It does not really matter that much whether He's very coming to become an issue today right now here as it is an issue of being manifesting divine expression of love which is a possibility without conditions. A possibility that puts into question objective, calculating knowledge that we have and also at the same time puts to shame our very own wisdom. It is also on this basis that we need to understand why somewhere out there when it was a holy night, silent night, somebody was born and it was there in this table where nobody dared to that He chose it is in this logic that we understand too where we position ourselves this incarnate Christ that we try to reduce as an object of cognition is actually a person we better relate to than we better deal with as an object of thought. For to be juicy as an object of thought is to reduce it on fleeting rationalities in coherences which which actually makes sense to some but which actually disturbs us all the more and it is this disturbance that He really came here for to disturb us just when we are already comfortable or uncomfortable with our own bodies that He really came to share our stench our smell our struggles and to show us that this God in blessed days in His simplicity chose to be that person and it has changed our behind the scenes. Thank you so much. Our scientists and the audience will be even in 10 minutes to be agreed decide which argument you find sit here if you think a doctor can answer arguments are more convincing think if you want to debate sit here if you think think that they want if you think doctor about if you want to debate Alright, thank you guys. We'll be back in 10 minutes. Ito ko. Nakaisakamera! I'll be in 10 minutes. I'll be in 10 minutes. I'll be in 10 minutes. Please please please please 10 seconds 10 10 10 10 10 10 Out of these, one, thirty-seven, thirty-nine, forty-eight, forty-one, forty-three, forty-three. Anyone else? Anyone else beside? Last count is forty-three, forty-four. Alright. So pro-sign is forty-four. Out of these, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. to thank our host and our sponsors. So, may we also have by the second speakers please in front. The speakers please come here. First and second please. Okay, a lot of applause for our speakers. We had a 50-something vote. The host of 40 people's call. Good morning. Before lying to me sa influencing remarks, I'd like to give a certificate of appreciation to our lucky painters. So, first of all, I'd like to give a certificate of appreciation on awarding to Dr. Mark Joseph Calano, Ph.D. for his outstanding contribution as his Ph.D. painter. During the philosophy of Christmas, we've been on a mystery many times. We've been on this many a day of December. We've been taking it at the Ph.D. in this seminary at the College of Philosophy. We've been part of Paganyapis in the Philippines, signed by President of the National Foundation of the Philippines, J.J. Wahens. I'd like to give a certificate of appreciation to Dr. Mark Anthony Pazella for his outstanding contribution as mod of the rainbow to the United States of America, to the Ph.D. and the Ph.D. in the Philippines, because we've been taking it at the Ph.D. in this seminary at the Ph.D. in San Francisco, to the Ph.D. And we've been taking it at the Ph.D. for the valuable support in hosting this event of the Ph.D. and we've been doing it at the Ph.D. in this seminary at the Ph.D. Kasi siya gila naman yung part para dina sa P.O.G. saanap sa ihanay ang pwede ng olo sa may eko ang pwede ng olo kung ang mga dino na yun kung mo ang saanap sa mga pa-courses sa N.H.R.I may ang pwede ng olo kung ang mga sinere na nga, kasi si P.C. Kung saanap na naman kung saanap sa M.H.R.I nang ilang ngang sila P.L ang di ko alam naman kung ko lusig nang mga mga mga mga mga M.H.R.I makailangan kasi kong nasipad na mong gali ng mga mga. So, we're very happy to finally appear sa Malay. I'd like to thank yung mga Bobby mong tanyang Framius. Of course, yung mga desang din. But at Pacific College, yung kaya malalang Framius. So, I'm very happy to be here at Pacific College. People from different places may come here. So, I hope people do support yung events like these for which are actually very interesting. Yung muna mong literature at the same time. Pero, mga mga gali pa yung. So, yung muna talawa. Boon ay di naman di itng siyok ang bahay. Ang bahay sa mga. So, mo siyang mga malalang. So, kaya makalufusak, yung intipad ay yung. Is only about the philosophical who did it. Nung proposition. Samarize mga nangporte. I'll face it in the context of contingency na siyong sasibling ko ngayon. So, yung muna kasi yung beauty. Yung contingency may be aiming sa kaeng mga mababa taho ang buhay ng matay. Kasi nabi yung intros yung taho sa sabi yung. Wala siyang pingiming. So, nakaan yung problema. Mapapalo yung isang contingent feeling ang magiging naysisade feeling. Hindi. Hindi. Pero ano ko lang yun. Yung tabilit yung yung tabiliming. So, baka nintere ngayon. So, yung pinap. Hindi yung mabibigan ngayon. So, yung tabilin yung yung problem na. Which is... They will do it. They will tell you what the problem is. Hindi ko na tatatang rise. Please call it. Also, think that siyong the understanding now also has something that is divine. Problem na. Ibad siyong doctor ko. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. Hindi. is one avenue to become for every person who comes. So, hindi natuwag labang nito ay manit ko yung language. Dali ba yung kasan? Si Matinay sa sabi dito lang yan. Ang reality na sa isim natin sa problema natin is how can we have a guy which is not a-plada to our own hindi sa sabi isim at si Matinay at essence of Mr. Chaffee. So, we hope to see you again at our friends like this. Meron national philosophy conference de Kresovitzkyl on Christian philosophy which is hosted by international seminary in Singapore. So, we hope to see you again. So, again, salamat. So, we have a lot of events in far for you for next year. So, you guys, since I've been here in Christian Ethics Relation Seminary we're joining that. February, we have a philipin national research society. They'll have a conference at Bagyo. We have an open mic philosopher's type on the way naman sa mga buhay na and also my path avenue. So, I'll give you that. If you're interested, we'll be having a philosophy and people call it. So, we'll be interested in a new age of by March. May philosophy of history sa April naman we will have Leloy Claudio if you're familiar with that but we don't know what's happening at that time. So, may joy we will have first human summit of all the societies of philosophy at the philipin at Sinoag University that's may 30th and 22nd of May and if you want to go to Bagyo we'll be having first joint society session on the way philosophy and religion society of Thailand we'll be having that by mid June so we'll be posing all these transplants from outside in the theater. Thank you once again for coming. May you and your friends bless you when you're in Sinoag University.