 person who diligently poured over to my master's thesis at the De La Salle University page by single page, and John Stark and my continuing research on scientific realism that eventually led to the successful and timely completion of my PhD. I've always wanted him to be resource for the first time since 2014. It had to take six years and my becoming chair finally get him here. So it took a long time. And so it was a gentlemen COVID-19 lockdown, not his time then. It is my singular honor to present to you Dr. Ceremaia of the JJ. So I'm here. Thank you very much for the wonderful introduction. And thanks for inviting me for this philosophical journey. Interesting. All right. So yes, I'm just calling me JJ for a short JJ. So I'll be talking about something that I've been working on for the past. So this is an idea that I developed some time earlier. So as we mentioned, I do work in logic in metaphysics. A lot of logic beyond CSMB application of the weekend, clean semantics. So that's a non classical logic, logic that I've developed with some collaborative concepts. Well, I'm doing work in metaphysics, especially mental metaphysics, the status of metaphysics of the discipline itself. But next slide, very quick. Recently I did this in philosophical theology. So what is this philosophical theology? That's an interesting model. Why? Because we'll question your faith today. How many of you have questions here right away? Breast tribes, Catholics, non-breast tribes, atheists, not problem. So I'm interested in theology. I'm interested in philosophical theology in general. Next slide. But to be specific, I'm interested in analytic theology. So this is something new that's been going on for the last 10 years. So this one is a development in the early 2000s, I think. So in the late 2000s, by Oliver Chris and Michael Ray. So Michael Ray is from Notre Dame. Oliver is, I think, St Andrews in Scotland. So we're talking about theology via a philosophical bit, but not just philosophy, but more of an analytic type of philosophizing. Next slide. So here's the challenge of analytic theology. So we apply the tools and techniques of analytic theology to understand certain Christian theological topics. So the idea is how many of you have talked about philosophy of language, analytic philosophy, to model logic, and so on? So if you're into that, you could apply those things in theological doctrines. So what are the techniques that we're using next slide? So the tools of logical and conceptual analysis, as you're seeing there, I'll give you a sample of how this works. And next slide. What Christian doctrines are you talking about? So analytic philosophy has been used in analyzing the Trinity, Christology, the Church of Christ, at the Old Menor, so it's got to go into place, and lie. Yeah, I wrote something on the good place, specifically when we think about the good place, bad place, the limited church place. Why don't we think about that and put those things through the soul? So here in this talk, I'll focus on one particular aspect of the Christian doctrine, and it's found in Matthew, near the mouth of sheep and goats. Now I'll try to give you a puzzle, something to think about. That's a moderated puzzle. I'll give you reasons why you should care about this puzzle. And if you're a Christian, you have to respond. So I'll give you seven possible responses. You suppose that it will happen again, and I'll just give you some tentative, cool, big rewards. So let's start with the puzzle. Next slide. Now I do hope you're familiar with the pattern of the sheep and goats. It's found in Matthew 25, 30146. I won't read the whole passage, but here's the rundown of the... As you can see, if you could see, sovereign Samadhi 95, 31, 32. When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels wed him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people, one from another, as shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. Think about that. Think about that particular part. He will separate people from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep. And you know, this party, there are sheep over the mountain, and the goats over the moon. Quickly. When the passage was on, when I was sick, did you look after me when I was in the percentage? Is it me and so on? I'll just skip that part. And focus on that part, the last part here. To me, I will tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the needs of these, you did not do for them. Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous return to life. So the sheep will go to eternal life, be gone, and the goats will be punished. And then go away to eternal punishment. So think about hell, think about heaven, think about sheep, think about goats. This gospel was one of the foundations in theology. We did that in such a theology, that is the doctrine of salvation. So how would you say, for Christians out there, of course, they would beg about the same thing. They would beg about the same thing. But that also goes to another theological doctrine, that is the doctrine of excommunication. What would happen if they had views? So now what would that mean? So that would be the same thing. Next. Now, biblical scholars or exegetes say that the parable implies the thought that salvation is attained by Salafide or Gathia, that is solely by faith, the grace of God, or by Salafegas, that is good works, or it's a combination of these in calculus. So the issue is, the biblical scholars is to help interpret salvation. It's salvation attained to faith alone, by faith alone, or by artworks. Now, we'll leave that aside for now. I'll draw a different mark. Think about this. Given the analogy of sheep and goats, the parable seems to imply a puzzle. There's something possible here. And I think the puzzle is premised on eschatological theories. What's that? Well, in the afterlife, if you're fated to be in one place or the other. Now, let's tell out the puzzle as follows. You will either be in heaven or in hell. So let's tell out the puzzle. Let's make that puzzle explicit. Philosophers don't need to give the argument. So I think this is quite a puzzle. You are, right now, either essentially a sheep or essentially a goat. So right now, as of the moment, you are either a sheep or a goat. First you're of the nature of sheep and goat. You are a sheep quite a bit of a goat. Now, so if you are essentially a sheep, then you are bound to be the God in heaven, as the pastor of the parable tells us. Now, if you are essentially a goat, then you're bound to be the God in heaven. Therefore, you are bound to be the God in heaven or be damned. Think about what he said. For those Christians, if you are truly a Christian, then how am I a sheep right now? How is this possible? It's not a one-event EIU. It's not a one-event parable. You are essentially a sheep or essentially a goat. Well, if you think about it, the parable is really interesting because the metaphor used was of sheep and goats. Why sheep and goat? Because if you are a sheep, then you can't be a goat. Not a one-event goat can be a sheep. So in that sense, if you are a sheep, then you can't be a goat. If you are a goat, you can never be a sheep. Don't be a one-event sheep. Don't be a one-event goat. Don't be a one-event goat. Either you are one or the other, but not goat. You can't be a goat. Next slide. How do we motivate premises to be three? Well, the basic idea is that if you are a sheep, then you're bound to go to heaven. If you're a goat, then you're bound to go to hell. Now, what's the reason for this one? Well, it's a final. The last issue we created, that's us. He will place a sheep on his right, but the goats on the left, and as the bachelor goes, those who are on the right will be in God in heaven. Those on the left will be born in heaven. Okay, let's go to heaven. Next slide. The goats go to heaven. So how about pollution? How do we motivate pollution with God in heaven or in hell? Well, the motivation is just simple. You show that the argument is valid. Conclusion for others who are on the premises. That is, if the premises are true, then the whole motion must be true. But the argument's valid. Next slide. So if you come at the structure of the argument, where do my children go? Either a sheep or goat go? If sheep did him, then if goat did him, then therefore either did them. Now, that structure is known as a constructive dilemma. It's a valid form of argument. It looks like this. Next slide. For those who are very chicken-macky-macky-logic, I don't think you should read that. Thank you. You don't have to be in logic of affairs. All right. Don't worry about some of us. I don't know if you're sitting here, and you're sitting in the moment, and either war or you're praying this wine. If they didn't pray this food and drink. And no pollution is necessary in your world. Next slide. Actually, you could have a simple version of the argument. So either your sheep or a goat, like the first one, if sheep, then you're fated to be in heaven. If goat, then you're fated to be in hell. So there's some kind of fatalist premise going on there. So you have to hope there's faith. Now, this one, I think, you might say, no, I'm not able to know what that means. I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means. But in philosophy, you need to think about what it would mean by faith here. Now, I think for, do you know what I mean by soul means? Do you know what I mean by time for you? If that's your mindset, then let's skip the forgo. Oh, so the argument's had premises, and you must have said that we are fated to be in heaven or hell. You can't do anything about that. Think about it, but are you a she? Remember your answer here, because we'll explore some answers for this and the other question. So why should you care about the bosom? Why did anyone mean concern about the bosom? Now, I think most of you are not, most of you are Christians. So as Christians, you should be concerned about the bosom. Now, for those non-christians, if you're an atheist, it's possible as well. But if you're an atheist, you should be concerned about the nature and existence of God. Why? Because at least for Christians, for today, it's you have to be concerned about some certain own problems. We think of God as an omnipotent being, an all-powerful being. We also think of God as an omniscient, finally, if you think of him or her or it, and you debate us on the benevolent, this God is also unloving. Now, if you hold on these omnipotent beings, and you also hold the bosom, the fatalistic bosom, they don't have a problem in their conception of God. Why? Because if the bosom is right, then God's omnipotence would be put into question. Why? Because God can't change the fact that either you will be in heaven or you will be in hell. If there's something that God can do, then he's not omnipotent. That's what I'm saying. So if the fatalist premise is right, then God can't change that. Especially God's omnipotence. It also has a problem for omniscience. Why? Because if the bosom is right, then since God already knows where you're in your heaven of hell, then it follows that it's up to you when you're in your heaven of hell. What do you use? With God's omniscience, you need those that you'll be in hell. And finally, if God is not omnipotent then if God permits some of you, perhaps you yourself, go to hell, then God does not wait in hell forever. Permits, or they permit people to go to hell and God's omnipotence. So the puzzle, it's important for the fetus, because it puts into question God's omnipotence. So if your thing is to respond, then this puzzle is a serious problem. So you need to respond. So how would you respond? Well, take a pic. Now as philosophers, I'm concerned among philosophers about the argument, who knows? Well, we couldn't deny one of the premise is false. Or accept the premise but deny it. You say, oh wait, but accept the premise is false. Or, reject the whole puzzle nonsense. You forgot something. And finally, you may accept the argument. Sell that thing. But if you accept it, then sell this. Excellent. Now here's an objection that we could raise for people who reject the whole puzzle. Let's start to motivate this response first. So to be able, well, I don't know what's going to happen to you. It's just a matter of fate. And what is it? It's just fate. So we should not question it. That's very true. So here's the objection. Of course, we can have a reasonable fate. I think you know about fate, fate, without strong rational grounds. You might say, well, it's better a reasonable fate than not a reasonable fate. So again, just reject the whole puzzle on that fate. Now here's our response, another response that we may take. Accept your argument for the sale and say, yeah, the premises are true, but I'm losing for others. So let's keep this. However, the objection to this one, so if you accept the conclusion, if you accept the argument, the puzzle, then either you need to question God. That's only problem. I guess it's possible. So I don't think that those two responses work. If you're a philosopher, if you're a philosopher of theology, you need to say either show that the argument has a false premise, and the argument is its own sound, or show that the argument is in that. So let's look at options or responses working on these things. So one way of arguing against the puzzle is to reject the principle. Deny it. You are either essentially a sheep or essentially a goat. Reject that. I'm on ground. Well, on ground might be. I'd be not essentialism entering extensions of those patterns of example, the verbal this might be for you. So we know that other dispensers of the same guilt don't say that life is a crime. I'm something like a very generous and sensitive majority of the people don't want to do it. So think about man here as human being, but it's not that. So you being is nothing else but what he, she, makes of him, her self. It's one of me. It's one of me. It's one of me. It's one of me. It's one of me. It's a becoming. It's an essence. It's an essence. It's something that you make for yourself. It's an object of the information fact. So you might say that you're not born. Do you see this? If you're going for this one, then you have this all the possible. Because if the premise one is false, then the argument is valid, but then you have a false premise. There's a problem with that. There's one. What's the problem? Well, this version of this is this atheist. Sorry for you. It's not that it was an atheist. Say you're not born. So it can't help us all this atheist. So atheist in position, atheist in puzzle, so you can't have that as such. Now you might have this one. So what's the idea? Well, Trinidad, for example, tells us that our existence is a paradox and we need to resolve it by going above. Indivision. It's a singular decision. It's just you. There's no precise meaning. There's no grammatical meaning. It's just you. There's no precise meaning. There's no grammatical meaning. It's you who decides to go. However, you might reply that there's still a problem for this version of existentialism since the parable's exegesis, that is the indication of the parable, impacts the strong existentialist community. That is, since I've been into the parable, I've either become your art and I don't think that existentialist possession would help us solve. But you might say that one of the responses to deny existentialist categories. We're not existentialists. We just deny the existentialist categories of good books. And perhaps you could turn to philosopher David Williams at the end of phase substance circles. This was developed in the 1960s. So we could distinguish perhaps between a phase circle, a phase category as opposed to the substance category or a circle. So this thing should be these two things. And sort of concepts that present can't simply be a pie or an individual at every moment of that individual's existence. For example, in human, and those that do not like being a boy, being a happy to cheer and so on. The former that has labeled them without prejudice as substance concepts while the latter what I call them as phase sources. Now what's the distinction here? Now right now you're saying that it's right. Now you're not an existentialist. Huh? It's just a phase that you have. Right now you're being introduced. Pain is from now on. I don't know how I am. Happy to listen to some joke. I don't know how I am. And so, those phase concepts or those phase circles are just temporary things that you have. Now in Aristotle, that's the penance of this. And essentially. Now, we could motivate that in terms of this argument. So you may refuse to say Sir John Till was the same boy as John Till. No. John Till was the same. Alright. So what's the idea? Are you five years or two? What are you doing? What should you wait for? And my mindset is the same person, same human being, because being a human being is your essential property, not being a k-popper or whatever. That's not the essence. The essence is something that stays with you all the time, the tense or the face properties will just be temporary properties. Now, what's the punch line? Well, the punch line here, substance concepts tell us the thing, what the thing is. Face, circles will only tell us what something temporality is. What's the option? An implication of the supposable? Well, you might say that we are substantially human beings, but we are in temporality perhaps and not substantially human beings. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, she's working in the order of some face, like something that you've achieved later on perhaps, but what not. Now, if you have that response, then it makes the argument again, that it, because the premise will be false, it's unsanitary. Now, again, the problem will be against this way of reply, because the parable implies that it's unsanitary. So you can't just subscribe to a kind of face or a substance or a type, because you are substantially uncoordinated. That's the problem. Now, this one is a really interesting response. And I think it's one of those responses that will lead us to project. So I need to know. Deny that if you're bored. So in response three, we deny the essential part. Response four, deny that it's unsanitary looking machine. This one, deny it more. We're not either bored or eager or should be bored. We're denying that bored. Because the future is still open for you. So I've denied it a lot. The future is completely open and we are writing it moment to moment. It's not yet time. It's different from the existence of this view, right? This one is just denying the bored. Now, I'll give you a similar argument. This argument comes from Aristotle. It's known as the feedback argument. It's part of this interpretation. So it looks like this. For a fatalist out there, this changes the feedback of the word into something else. It's never going to happen again. It's never going to happen again. It's never going to happen again. It's never going to happen again. It's never going to happen again. So since there's something special about the future, things, the future is never. This is the fatalist actually. If it's my destiny to become the president of the Philippines, then whatever I do, I will be the president of the Philippines. That's a mindset. Now, Aristotle, Aristotle's a seat that will argue with you. If you look at the structure of the structure of a puzzle, we call them argument analogues, because he shared it with him for it. I'm asking him for it. So you can call them analogues, argument analogues. Now, our response to Aristotle's argument is that sentences about the future are contingently true. Belts are at best neither too norful. So being able to see deeper, we'll talk about some Monday put all that in. But we don't know. It's neither too norful. It's now, give you an example. Because it's still in the future. Well, I'm not that sure. Well, anyway. But it's later we've got a free palace. Free day for everyone who attended. So statements about the future are contingently true. We're not getting sure whether or not it's true or false. So they're not even either if it's not true or false. So this idea of being neither if it's not true or false leads us to this guy's idea. So this one is young. If you develop a kind of logic, something in the literature is L3. It's a 3-by-8 logic. So since I made some logic ago, sentences are either true, false, or either gap. Gap meaning it's neither true nor false. We're not getting sure. Now, what this does, if you add that gap in your logic, then you have to deny the long, excluded middle. It doesn't go up when you're thinking perhaps. You know this principle. There are any sentence. It's either true or it's negation is true. Alright? If you devalues that thing there, the dog's in the middle. It wouldn't be false. Now, there's something peculiar about this. Because if you have a premise in the argument, which is in the gap, that is, it's neither true nor false, then the argument is still in fact. If you have a statement about the future, if it happens, then you have to look at your boyfriend, and the film in the future, and then you have to look at your child. That's a gap. It's a fact. Because it's still in fact. Because it's neither true nor false. And your boyfriend will be. Now, since ancient religions are neither true nor false, then our human here, will be valid by itself. Now, since our possible is an analog of this argument, it violates that this argument is also valid by itself. So, our logical goals will give you the function that we want, because there's a following in the premise there. That's the first sentence. Now, that's good. Alright, there are problems. And one problem, I hope we know, one more problem, is that an axophonistic battle argument is raised in the future tense, but our cause of it not. Unseemly. When an axophonistic argument might be valid by itself, because it's in the future tense, our argument here does not rely on the future tense. It's about what you are in the app, and occasionally. So, while the logic analysis works for that argument, it does not necessarily work for the puzzle that we have. Now, one thing that's responsible to this puzzle is denied inevitability. So, denied primacy is two and three, except one, that you are either essentially a donor or a sheep, but denied the of primacy is two and three, because of that you need to have an argument. How do we do that? Look at the argument there, and look at this argument. Notice what's different between this one and the Aristotle argument. And look at the difference. Now, that's the first sentence. This one is the real annul of the Aristotle of the puzzle. Alright? So look at the argument. Either you're going to be killed by a bomb, or you're not. If you're going to be killed by a bomb, then it's inevitable. You're going to be killed by a bomb. It's not it's inevitable that you're not going to be killed. So it's inevitable. Either way. What? Now, I like this paper. I think this one is the real fatalist argument. It's not about the future. It's about the now. For example, this one is the fatalist argument. This one is the real annul. Now, how do we question this? Alright, next one. Now, let's talk about this as an easement. Our sense of fatalism. Our sense of fatalism. Our sense of fatalism. Our sense of fatalism. Our sense of fatalism. Something is inevitable. Sense of fatalism. If something happens, then it must happen. What happened to him? If I ate eggs this morning, and which he did, did I eat necessarily, I ate eggs this morning. I don't know how many people are here. Those six years. We haven't given him anything. We don't even have today. What's the problem with that type of research? What's wrong with that type of research? Well, you might ask, if something did happen, must it inevitably have happened? Now, let's distinguish the two types of thinking there. Let's compare. The single, I don't want to say what's the question, distinguish. Let's distinguish between Necessarity, Fp, then p, and Fp, then Necessarity, p. Where p is just a sentence. Now, why? If what's revealed to you? If p, then p is anthropology, so it's necessarily true. Why do I want to make, then why not make? That's just true. So it's necessarily true. However, 2, that 4, is many false. Why? True. Why do I want to make, then why not make? So that's the whole idea. When you think about things happening, because it happened, it must have happened. That's just what you need to do. So you have to deny pregnancy change. Now, I think this response is also good. However, there are some problems at the degrees. Well, if you look at the puzzle, and you look at the boundaries of individuality of the previous, previous catalog, then you might say, these two things are different. That I ate eggs this morning. It seems to be a different sort of sentence from, if you are actually, then you are bound. It seems like premise 6, premise 3 and 4, premise 3 and 4 of the puzzle, is a different sort of bound in this, or inevitability. When you're talking about stupidity, and you're thinking about bombs, and you're dying by bombs. So response 6 seems fine to, they accept the necessary FB then is true. They deny the FB the necessary FB. That art puzzle does not have that for them. I'm going to try to get the necessary FB then, if you're actually, then you are going on with it. It's a difference. And I think that, okay, that's response. It's called smaller. So, let's go to my favorite. I think you want to play game because I didn't know. So I gave you a response is, response is to move 6, all that set that the argument is valid. Valid is a very registered manual. Well, a response to accept all the things. But let's look at the response that denies that the argument is valid. So they want to show the argument is in. I'm for this one. This one is called version. It's like this. They'll appear in me because it is a work in progress. If you could help me think about this some more, it would be great. I think that the puzzle assumes certain sort of exhaustiveness Prince one, especially. You are either a sheep or a goat, but not a goat. That's crucial. But why accept this? Can we be both in goat? Let's think about that. If you want to have the entire plan for this, so imagine this will go here. On the left, that was all the sheep are there in the right. But there's an interesting thing to do. And that's eggs. That's us. And we are a goat. And sheep. We're inside pen and pen. It's a goat. That's a weeping. Yeah, maybe. We are for sheep. And we go. Now, what's the motivation? So why think that there are goats? That we are goats? Well, by analogy, we'll say that some sentences are sheep. Others, of course. Well, if you are gluts. I mean a gap in gluts. Oh, gluts. These are sentences which are both through in. Now, look at the three types of sentences. Not at all. I'll give you the live experience. A sentence about emotion. And a sentence about choice. And I'll try to formulate it by using those three. Consider this sentence. This sentence in red high high is points. Is it through? I'm not familiar with the live time. I mean, the thing that will happen. If it's true, then what it says holds. So, since it says that it's false, if it's true it holds. So, it might be false. But if it's false, then what it says does not hold. Since I'm young, it's false. If it's not false, then what it says holds. It's true. So, it's both true. What's happening under the guard? It lies. We are living problems. How about bullshit? Consider this sentence. I am moving. It looks like any contradictory. But I'm just contradictory. Let's make it explicit. If it's true that you are moving, then I, you are moving from one point to another one. Right? If you are moving from one point to another point, then I am not in one particular point because you're in a flux. So, if you're moving and you are both in one point and not in one point. So, the sentence that I am moving is both true. And you're saying that I'm choosing between this or that. I'm choosing between John and James. What? If that's true, next line. They can't make a choice between those two. How much do I say? They're just making a choice. So, if you are yet to make the choice, then you are in a state where you're both making and not making the choice. Choosing one or the other. So, in saying that they're choosing, I'm sure you're saying that you are choosing and not choosing. Life is full of paradoxes. Life is full of contradictions. Last, next line. We are paradoxes. We are paradoxes. We are glances. But glances are really weird things. And they can be really weird things as well. Now, I didn't even see the two logicians, too. We've talked a lot about these things. We're not really sincere in this. One of them is my personal friend. His name is Graham Priest. It's largely a term as glum or lp, the logical paradigm. It was developed in 1963 by the Sanford and it was further developed by the Stratis group. So, since lp has the values, it's true, false, and glump. So, it's glump, it's true and false. And if you set this one, if you have set the gluts view, then you have to deny the law of non-contradiction. Not even the law of non-contradiction. Something is and is not can be or something is or can be acceptable. Alright, but if you have set gluts, there are paradoxes, two paradoxes, two contradictions, then you have to deny them. Now, as a consequence, then your logic will be not explosive. And this one's technical, the technical, just tells you that explosion is from prediction, and this logic denies that. But the option of having this logic in mind is that an argument is valid in this logic if in only a personal case where its premises are through or through the thoughts, what its conclusion is. Now, if you have allowed these values in our puzzle, and you'll show the argument is in there, why? Because the first premise is both through and false. For both, machine and vector. So it's true and false that they are either machine or vector. Then you can set all the rest of the premises but the whole rule show the microphone. So the argument is this logic, this device is something, as I've said, I'm working on. And this has implications in other sorts of logic. Like when you think about Christian logic, the crisis in me choose. The what? Crisis you want then crisis you find. But what about that? If you have a security in the common issue the device you have in the common issue so it's both security and the other the common issue. Now given this logic you can have an answer there. Your set has a prioritized formulation just for us. Now there are problems that I've considered here like is it rational to put different levels? I don't have a contradiction. This is for the true and false. Does this mean that we have a sheet and goat nature? Or are we essentially... Well, here are the different answers. So is it different rational to think about bloods? Yes. Given the difference in the best explanation. I think that is what this means. Does this mean that we have a sheet and goat nature? Yes, because we have a good side and a bad side. Are we essentially... Nope. It's not... It's impossible that we have a sheet and goat nature by entirely goat nature. It's not essential for us to be... but we are. Somewhere else. You sort of forgot about it. So here I introduce you to analytical theology. When thinking about theological doctrine we have a highly logical side to think about sin. So sin can put a lot of attention on part of a lot of sheet and goats and it can give you ways of responding to this puzzle if you are into Christianity or your Christian and so on. Now, just a few more about the relationship between philosophy and theology. If you are a atheist if you believe in God and you have faith in God and both of you have some root in thinking about faith that seeks understanding. But I'll add something to that idea that you seek understanding by the good self and the good. Thanks very much. Thanks for your presentation. I am sure every participant is going to read and share their thoughts in science and questions just very frankly. Can you approach the microphone? State your name and post your question or reaction. We certainly will also be there in case there are questions you wish to write down and submit to us. Questions and or also insights. So it's time for you to share it or ask it. We are calling for something. To say through my research I found that through the Michael it says that in Matthew 10 59 to 31 it says that even the weather hairs on your head are numbered so when we got the numbers the numbers of your hair and he also said that I determined acts 70 to 26 I determined the exact type of your beard so before you were born I knew so sir could be is it possible that we are also being determined to be a goat or a sheep because he knows already where we will live and how would we live. Thanks very much for the wonderful question. Really interesting. Omniscience is a real hard not to cry. Very good philosophy of religion omniscience is a real being because you can see the moment you can't lose everything you can mistake because if you make a mistake then you must not. She it. Let's be generous. She Alright. Going back to the question I think we need to distinguish between determinism and faith Now these two notions albeit similar time and qualification to differ is an immediate understanding of the philosophers. If you are into philosophy of science if you are interested in thought that giving the last nature in the history of the universe and giving an arbitrary part of the future is big and principal what that future is given the last nature but fatalism is not like that Fatalism idea is a logical thing something that could be negative so it's not confusing to do the Bible the passages that you quoted is not a determinist it's more about fatalism the one that exists so yeah I agree it's a big problem that's why I've shown you that if it was a disorder you don't mention this you have to let go of those notions because you did not choose your faith God just to distinguish between the right and the wrong Other questions? Thank you Dr. Lee Questions, insights If you have any views feel free to write your questions we have to make our hand just to be a little much shy Thank you Again, I'm rewarding to my boss because we are traditional as I've lost a doubt It's fate I think in order to forward the idea of I think that you can only decide something and I see a bright future for us people so what are you going to decide then? the first part please that's a very good question alright, it's God Governing by the law remember Thomas Aquinas who talks about this one can God create something that he cannot hear? can God create a stone? if you think about it and you ask if you answer yes God can create a stone that he cannot carry then there's at least one thing that he can't do that is carry the stone so he's not omnivorous if you answer no God can't create something that he cannot carry then there's at least one thing that he can do could create a stone so either way it's by the law that God can't carry now, I'm sorry I mean Aquinas so I've been having a lot of in terms of what's actually possible and what's logically possible so it's actually possible of things like there's a 7 footer that there's a 10 footer that's possible there maybe in the actual set maybe not because given the lots of nature that we have with every notion that we have so far what's the most important thing that's possible there 7 footer 7 footer whoever but it's logically possible it's logically possible to have a 10 footer possible it's logically possible to have a 6 footer it's logically possible to have a 6 footer it's logically possible although actually not possible so if somebody Aquinas we only have to limit God's powers within what's logically possible I disagree I'm very clear God cannot create a square circle I'm very clear God cannot create a male dixie dixie and male dixie and male dixie and male dixie and male dixie and male dixie and he can't create a 5 footer and a 6 footer and a 6 footer because it's a confidant in terms so how else would limit God's powers in terms of what's logically possible I disagree why? because he could be impossible so yeah I really have that idea that we need not limit God in terms of logically possible without limit logic in the classical sense because the logic we talked about the logic of the paradox I won't tell you even with it give you a way to understand how God can create something that you cannot the second question is about logic time is a really interesting metaphysical problem by the way we have a hard front okay so we have a BAB one time okay now right now in the metaphysics in the true you have two particular views of time you did about one time in the nappy field of time in the static field of time the time is just fixed right now you might think you don't have any static because you're feeling the dynamics of the change however you can think about time in terms of when you feel you feel why don't we think today why don't we think but when you e-scape depending on the release of the escape from the field what so you can think about time it's not static it's nappy but you think about it in terms of static where are you now if you go for the nappy view then you will have a problem with conditions because if you could change if you could change then God could not know could not have known what you would do in future but if God is seeing things in a static time then he knows what would happen what would happen what would happen so where is free will in the modern world Australia so free will I think this is philosophical question it seems like if you're going for this nappy view it's just an illusion something like how do you do it what do you do what do you do what do you do what do you do what do you do but it's just how things are sorry if you want to preserve conditions if you want to preserve on-never limits and so on I think the metaphysics for you is something like the static view and so on no free will if you use just an intuition so yes that's my view sorry it's just a question but it's not a free will it's just an illusion there's one question doctor a participant I will read how can you differentiate the will of God and the will of man given the possible details the decautimized future for man either hell or heaven doesn't that point out more on the nature of man or moral condition of man rather than the nature of God oh yeah I like that the question of will of God and the will of oh no man it's what our will okay I can't change this type of stuff okay I like that question you might say the possible because we're giving our we're projecting notions ordinary notions of God perhaps God is not perfect you're right I have to agree I don't even know your perception of how God is the way you work however we need to know if that's your point of view that we can never know the will of God then the whole enterprise of our religion the base of our religion would be it's a matter of faith that we accept that God has this power and if you want to look at this near-projection of what facing from the passages of the Bible facing from the doctors of the church facing from those things there's something in it really going on here perhaps we are knowing the will of God we maybe let you know a special a special way to access the will of God that's all I don't know about that my question is something you say about subjective religious experiences people justifying that they were about the will of God they were demonically possessed the question is can't we take subjectivity to be a true foundation of religious belief because there are actually people who take religion as a source of an arm nothing from any internet people who do not believe in religion can you say about that subjectivity that's really the positive I'm teaching a course in philosophy of religion and that's our topic not kidding I like a question but it's not a question about the rational basis of your religious convictions or religious beliefs so there's the view that religious beliefs are not really rational if you have a subjectivist a betterivist would say a specificist would say that's what we need to be able to take one of these beliefs that's our conviction or mass hallucination or opium so if you're going for that that's one of you but I do think personally I'm an atheist I don't know that's why it's not a problem for me I'm serious about if you're serious about people of God and you're talking about your faith we need to think about these things as that they have rational basis that they are argued for that there's evidence given for them that they have rational basis and so on we need to think about what you're talking about or what you're talking about or your miracles and miracles are hard to believe but for me, my conviction personally if you're going to be serious about your conviction you need to think about those three claims that have evidence that they are argued for you might say that the argument is all good but you're taking them serious and I think that's a very good way to do it I have an election for this question and somehow it is also in contradiction to the existence of free will but I will start with Adam and Eve so Adam and Eve say if God is omnipotent then giving us free will would put God in a position where he can control us therefore therefore it would make him a not so all powerful God because we would be put out of his control and if he is omniscient then he knew they would disobeyed him so why give them free will but this would mean that Adam and Eve were eventually votes and he knew that in the first place but if God is a good God or an omnipotent God then why would he create something that is a vote in nature very good philosophy major why are you disobeying me? okay I will answer that maybe you're the only one who will answer first answer at least the whole argument I'm not going to answer because I'm going to answer let's take the Adam and Eve story let's take the Adam and Eve story let's take the Adam and Eve story and of course we know that God is omnipotent Adam and Eve is not omnipotent but Christ salvation Christ becoming man man happening without Adam and Eve so they played their part in the summations so it's hard to believe because they love him and I think that's the defense personally I don't think that there are those girls because I don't believe in heaven or hell but going back in the Adam and Eve story if God already knew the table sin why did he pray again according to Catholic tradition Catholic doctrine because salvation in history would not have happened in the doctrine of original sin if there is no God if there is no God if there is no God if there is no God if there is no God why did God justysł look at the picture it is 5000 no if there is no prosecutor and everything is pre-嫉 then can we be helpful by our actions Feel a major? No. Consider it. Because yeah, we have an idea that accountability requires people, right? You can put people in accountability in actuality. You can do it with, you know what? But we did not do it voluntarily or it's not actually done out of people. However, as this thing meshed, again, it wasn't for this thing goal, between responsibility and accountability. Because it could be a hot weather or anything, you could be speaking or whatever, without being free of giving back. But it would be responsibility, because it is responsibility seems to require more than the idea of human will. Now, going to your question, suppose that you mean what you meant to us, if we don't have free will, should we be unresponsive? Are we supposed to be blame or praise for those actions? That's a question you may think, by the way, right? Now our thought is, we can't be praise or blame for an action if we did not do it knowingly and voluntarily. So, airport, if we don't have free will, I agree that we can't be more unresponsive. But here's the hatch. Here's a development in that that we're sure, showing that the thought was that free will is really into here. There's no such notion. It's a really weird notion to think about. This one is an argument coming from Geir and Stossam in late 90s and 2000s. I meant for whatever. The argument is, if the notion of free will requires that we need to be ultimately responsible for what we want. Free will, the notion of free will requires that we need to be ultimately responsible for everything that we are, for your very needs. Obviously, we can't be responsible for who our parents were. We don't have any circumstances of your birth, or your class, your economic status and so on. Those are things that you can't be ultimately responsible for. Hence, free will is an invulnerated notion of free will. So we will only entertain more questions? Excuse me, I don't have a lecture. I actually didn't solve that talk, but even you're talking about free will is not important to me. So what more about myself? I'm not a freedom major. I am a master's in science and psychology, major in clinical psychology major. However, like I said, I have studied informally philosophy. I have also reached the same conclusion that free will does not exist. However, I would say, what are the implications, normally speaking? If I would say that all implies can. You can't do something, you can't morally be obliged to do something. You can't do it anyway. You can't morally be obliged to help the poor if you don't have the resources without them anyway. So I'm thinking, and I have been really thinking about this a lot. It's not that I want to revive free will in any stretch of the imagination. However, I want to see the picture of moral responsibility. How can we still play with the notion of moral responsibility despite the lack of free will? Thank you. Again, I think we need to distinguish actually four things in your question. First, as I said earlier, distinguish between responsibility and immobility. You could be audible for things that you do. Later speaking, it depends on whether you have a free will or not. So we have a judge that says, that's the funny part. The not so funny part is, when you think about that, if you think about the free will, it will be required for responsibility and immobility, which is just possible. Then, what's a piece of morality that if you don't have? Now, there are certain other ideas of morality that some grounded on free will. For example, if you're a behaviorist, you think that products of behavioral manifestations, then your morality should be grounded on behaviorist principles. If you have seen populist laws or what not, then your morality is just conditioned. Right action is dictated by the law of society. But if it's grounded, then it's not. Last, about ought and can. I think we need to think about ought-can relationship, not in terms of free will, but how better if you have free will in ought-can relationship. Just to give you a highlight. The idea of action implies can. It means that for any norm, the norm implies that you can do it. Because if you can't do it, the norm does not make sense. So, you can't do anything about it. So, you can't do anything about it. But does it imply for you something about free will? It's not that. It's a different principle. Is there any possibility that what they are referring as free will is the concept of? Yes, there's no knowledgeable contradiction in things like that. But I think what you meant by your question is that it is our notion of free will, just a product of similar response. I desire a drink. I saw this thing here. The graphic was my action brought about by my free will. Now, aren't you going to fear you? Yes, because your action was brought about by your belief and your desire. That is to say, you're free so long as you have a set of beliefs. You have a desire for action, you have a desire for goals. And that goal is what we are trying to do. We are trying to do it personally. Because I don't think that we have. Our appreciation to our dear keynote speaker that's gone, the chairperson of the philosophy department, BWF, our PhD for the certificate. Certificates of appreciation to Jeremiah, for being the keynote speaker for philosophers, given this day of February 2020 as a training room, for the first companions at the university. Signed, chair, department of philosophy, assistant dean, and your candidate for that PhD, dean of school of arts and sciences. Let us give a round of applause again to our keynote speaker. Thank you so much. So sit back, relax. We will have another part of our program, which is our breakout session. If you can see, you were given stops. Can you write your names there? And you have a ticket number? It's up in the logistics. For the breakout sessions, everyone listen. Moderators for the breakout sessions, so that the students will know who to follow and what paper to choose. How many do we have? We have 8% and how many rooms? Four rooms, including this room. So can we go on first? We will put here the papers, the papers and the presenters, and also here. Sir James and I will be here. These are the papers inside this hall on freedom and constitution by Sara Alda Parri Matudina and virtue as the cost to our therapy destination by Joshua Phillip Opeña. These topics may stay clear. But if you want, can we find a parking lot so that they will know who to follow? Kim and Sir Ayan. Okay. So the paper in the room of my artist will be Complete Full Voluntary Life by Ms. Erika Claire Peña Serada and what is the contribution of abortion to human flourishing by Angelique Cas Roquillo. Your room with Matke and Sir Ayan is B502. Do you have Kim if you would like these topics for the breakout? The idea of when we all meet can we raise G.U. Sting and we also have conserving the environment by telling me that we are doing this. May I request ma'am and me? Please come in front. Venue B402. If you want these topics so we may go there she will guide you. We also have applied philosophy so the fault in the pornography stars where I decided to meet is that and being part of Angelique B402 class class is acceptable and you may come in. So Venue is F412 back on Ms. Mina Jane Peratos please come in front. So just follow her she will guide you there. So if you want these topics again so we may go there. Ma'am Jane. That's all. So you have to be back before each speaker will be given a max of 15 minutes and 10 minutes for the open forum and you have to be here before 11.40 for the raffle and all other things that are fun, fun, fun. So get your snacks there your stuff should be given take out your stuff so that there will be no delays and follow your moderations. See you later.