Eastern Orthodox Christian Discussion on Epistimology

Elocm

Active Member
May 29, 2020
32
14
Ohio
✟17,355.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I know the Incarnation happened because I know Christ.

just because you can't shake hands with someone, that doesn't mean you question they exist. I mean, do you question that Abraham Lincoln existed just because you can't shake his hand?

I believe that Abraham Lincoln existed because there seems to be sufficient evidence that he existed. But Abraham Lincoln isn't God, and never claimed to be. This comparison is apples and oranges. But, I do believe that Christ existed, but the claim to divinity is hard to know with epistemic certainty. Anything infinite is hard to know with epistemic certainty because we are finite beings.

As I said before, you can posit all the same things that you are saying and exchange it with any god. But it still doesn't offer up any kind of justification. How do you know for certain that you aren't falling victim to prelest? How do you know that it's truly Christ?
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I believe that Abraham Lincoln existed because there seems to be sufficient evidence that he existed. But Abraham Lincoln isn't God, and never claimed to be. This comparison is apples and oranges. But, I do believe that Christ existed, but the claim to divinity is hard to know with epistemic certainty. Anything infinite is hard to know with epistemic certainty because we are finite beings.

As I said before, you can posit all the same things that you are saying and exchange it with any god. But it still doesn't offer up any kind of justification. How do you know for certain that you aren't falling victim to prelest? How do you know that it's truly Christ?

if the Empty Tomb, myrrh gushing relics and icons that heal, holy water, what the Church has survived, fulfillment of prophecy, clairvoyant elders, etc are a lot more than Abraham Lincoln. we aren't comparing apples and oranges. we're comparing an apple with a larger and more obvious apple.

and you can't do it with any other god. only the Christian God is Incarnate. that's a major difference.

I know it's not prelest because the Church has put in order how to make sure it's not prelest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

Elocm

Active Member
May 29, 2020
32
14
Ohio
✟17,355.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
if the Empty Tomb, myrrh gushing relics and icons that heal, holy water, what the Church has survived, fulfillment of prophecy, clairvoyant elders, etc are a lot more than Abraham Lincoln. we aren't comparing apples and oranges. we're comparing an apple with a larger and more obvious apple.

and you can't do it with any other god. only the Christian God is Incarnate. that's a major difference.

I know it's not prelest because the Church has put in order how to make sure it's not prelest.

The reason that this comparison between Abraham Lincoln and Christ is different seems pretty obvious to me. 1. We can't know Abraham Lincoln, he is dead. At best we can know about him but that is entirely different. 2. Abraham Lincoln never claimed to be God, We do not know God in the same way we know human beings. You could use it as an analogy I guess, but it's a very poor one. 3. Even after the incarnation we still don't know Christ in the same way we know our relatives and our neighbors. Knowledge of Christ is very different from knowledge of human persons. Theosis, as I understand it, is not the same (in any meaningful way) as knowing a human person, it has to be different by definition.

The list that you gave as reasons to trust the testimony of the Church seems to just be begging the question, when we're talking about epistemology. How do we know, for certain, that we can trust that the Church teaches correctly? How can we be epistemically certain that the testimony of the Saints and the Church Fathers is true? Maybe they were deceived.

But, maybe everything you've said is true, but we'll never be able to know for sure. This is the conclusion I continue coming to. And If that's the case, do you think this poses a problem?
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The reason that this comparison between Abraham Lincoln and Christ is different seems pretty obvious to me. 1. We can't know Abraham Lincoln, he is dead. At best we can know about him but that is entirely different. 2. Abraham Lincoln never claimed to be God, We do not know God in the same way we know human beings. You could use it as an analogy I guess, but it's a very poor one. 3. Even after the incarnation we still don't know Christ in the same way we know our relatives and our neighbors. Knowledge of Christ is very different from knowledge of human persons. Theosis, as I understand it, is not the same (in any meaningful way) as knowing a human person, it has to be different by definition.

The list that you gave as reasons to trust the testimony of the Church seems to just be begging the question, when we're talking about epistemology. How do we know, for certain, that we can trust that the Church teaches correctly? How can we be epistemically certain that the testimony of the Saints and the Church Fathers is true? Maybe they were deceived.

But, maybe everything you've said is true, but we'll never be able to know for sure. This is the conclusion I continue coming to. And If that's the case, do you think this poses a problem?

the Abraham Lincoln point was because you said the reason you can't know God is because you can't do something like shake his hand. He came to mind because I doubt you question his existence for reasons like that. the facts that he never claimed to be God and is dead isn't relevant to the point I was making (which also wasn't an analogy).

to your second point, you can know because you know God Himself. again, when we're talking about this it's theology, not philosophy. you can know for sure because you can know Him.
 
Upvote 0

Elocm

Active Member
May 29, 2020
32
14
Ohio
✟17,355.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
the Abraham Lincoln point was because you said the reason you can't know God is because you can't do something like shake his hand. He came to mind because I doubt you question his existence for reasons like that. the facts that he never claimed to be God and is dead isn't relevant to the point I was making (which also wasn't an analogy).

to your second point, you can know because you know God Himself. again, when we're talking about this it's theology, not philosophy. you can know for sure because you can know Him.

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.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.

it's not a logical fallacy since I am not making a philosophical argument. God is not a concept to be argued. I said that at the beginning.
 
Upvote 0

Elocm

Active Member
May 29, 2020
32
14
Ohio
✟17,355.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
it's not a logical fallacy since I am not making a philosophical argument. God is not a concept to be argued. I said that at the beginning.

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 for epistemology that doesnt result in either question begging or circular reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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 for epistemology that doesnt result in either question begging or circular reasoning.

again, you are applying philosophy to theology. those are different disciplines.

and that isn't all I said.

we're talking about something that works through revelation. it's not nonsensical at all when you're talking about a personal encounter.
 
Upvote 0

Elocm

Active Member
May 29, 2020
32
14
Ohio
✟17,355.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Is it nonsensical to say, I know what honey tastes like since I had some?

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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Is it nonsensical to say, I know what honey tastes like since I had some?

exactly, that's how personal revelation works. no one would ask you to justify you know what honey tastes like because people are born without a sense of taste.
 
Upvote 0

Elocm

Active Member
May 29, 2020
32
14
Ohio
✟17,355.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
again, you are applying philosophy to theology. those are different disciplines.

and that isn't all I said.

we're talking about something that works through revelation. it's not nonsensical at all when you're talking about a personal encounter.

How do you know that what you are encountering truly is God?
 
Upvote 0

Elocm

Active Member
May 29, 2020
32
14
Ohio
✟17,355.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
exactly, that's how personal revelation works. no one would ask you to justify you know what honey tastes like because people are born without a sense of taste.

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. Theosis isn't in any way the same as eating honey.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.

not the rationale behind it though.
 
Upvote 0

icxn

Bραδύγλωσσος αἰπόλος μαθητεύων κνίζειν συκάμινα
Dec 13, 2004
3,092
885
✟210,855.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
The experience of God and the experience of honey are categorically different.
They are categorically different, but analogous. God can be perceived through our spiritual senses, whereas visible things through our bodily senses.
We are talking about the justification for knowledge of ultimate truth, not justification for knowledge of sensory experience.
But the ultimate truth is not a concept. He is a Person.
Again, these analogies are themselves nonsensical. God is not experienced the same way honey is. Theosis isn't in any way the same as eating honey.
You are wrong. Theosis is the partaking of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4), much like the particles that make up honey are infused into the human body when partaken.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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. Theosis isn't in any way the same as eating honey.

no one does that. no one meets someone for the first time, finds out he was born in Pittsburgh, moved to Florida, loves the Penguins, listens to Rush, and then seeks to justify all those claims.

and we're not talking about theosis. there is more to theosis than knowing who God is.
 
Upvote 0

Elocm

Active Member
May 29, 2020
32
14
Ohio
✟17,355.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
not the rationale behind it though.

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.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.

that's only because you want to put something that isn't philosophy into a philosophical box, and will only be satisfied when it fits there.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Elocm

Active Member
May 29, 2020
32
14
Ohio
✟17,355.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
They are categorically different, but analogous. God can be perceived through our spiritual senses, whereas visible things through our bodily senses.

But the ultimate truth is not a concept. He is a Person.

You are wrong. Theosis is the partaking of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4), much like the particles that make up honey are infused into the human body when partaken.

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.
 
Upvote 0