Recent content by Elocm

Absolutely, thanks again!

Are there any specific works by either of them that I should read first?

Which is an experience that requires no justification, outside of "I just know" Which is circular. And is a claim that can be made by any religious group. I'm gonna have to leave it at that. Thanks for engaging with me, I appreciate it! Do either of you have any recommended reading material...

Why should I believe the Church Fathers, the Scriptures or the Councils? How can I know that what they taught was true? and how can these beliefs be justified?

The question at hand is epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy which deals with knowledge. Therefore, philosophy must be used when we are talking about knowledge of God. I understand that Orthodoxy teaches that knowledge of God comes from experience of God, which itself is a philosophical...

Why are you assuming that philosophy and theology don't overlap? How have you come to this idea? Can you give a justification for this concept?

The fact that Truth is a person, and not a concept is itself a concept. The fact that you can put it into words means that you can conceptualize it. It's a concept that you had to learn, but apparently are unable to justify it.

Well what Im getting fron you is that there is no rationale to any of it, becuase God is not something that can be reasoned about. Its just based on your own subject experience which cant ultimately be justified becuase then that would be applying philosophical concepts to God.

But personal revelation has to be reasoned about, the fact that you can differentiate between what is personal revelation and what isn't show's that it possible, in fact it's absolutely necessary. Again, these analogies are themselves nonsensical. God is not experienced the same way honey is...

How do you know that what you are encountering truly is God?

The experience of God and the experience of honey are categorically different. We are talking about the justification for knowledge of ultimate truth, not justification for knowledge of sensory experience. This is an apples and oranges comparison.

Im not asking you to argue for God as a philosophical concept. Im asking you to justify your knowledge of God (epistemology), and your answer has essentially been, "I justify my knowledge of Him, becuase I know Him." Which is nonsensical. You havent been able to give an ultimate justification...

You missed the point i was trying to make about the "shaking hands". But id rather move past it because we seem to be talking past each other. Saying you can justify your knowledge of God, "because you know Him" is circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.

Thank you!

Thank you!