Is knowledge possible? What are the preconditions forknowledge? Why not? How do you justify and groundthese? Which epistemology doyou use? How do you autonomously groundthe preconditions forknowledge? How do you theonomously groundthe preconditions forknowledge? Is that statement itselfobjectively true? Do you know that to be thecase? Then the original statement isproven false. Then relativism isself-admittedly not the case. Then that contradicts theoriginal statement, whichmeans the original statementis self-refuting. Then you can’t assert theoriginal statement, given youyourself admit that you don’tknow whether it is the case. You can’t use reason, logic and argumentationto prove reason, logic and argumentation.That’s begging the question. … Which foundation? How do you know your web ofbelief is the correct web ofbelief, and what’s theepistemic criteria fordisputing other webs ofbelief? How do you know which beliefto put in the web of beliefand which to reject? What’sthe epistemic criteria foraccepting or rejecting this orthat belief, especially giventhe fact that they are allunjustified when taken intoconsideration individually? Regarding the “web ofbeliefs”, when takenindividually/one by one, areany of them justified on theirown? Then how does a web of beliefmade up of unjustifiedelements produce a justifiedsystem? What makes you thinkthat a bunch of unjustifiedpropositions will justify eachother when put together? Then that’s not coherentism,that’s another form offoundationalism. What is your criteria of truthbased on? … Why are they true? What is the ontological statusof logic and reason? How is Orthodoxy coherent andhow does it avoid the problemsthat plague other worldviews? Which paradigm? … Self-evident according towhom? Why should anybody accept yourself-evident maxims? Is your belief that thosethings are self-evident,itself self evident? If your belief in that beliefalso self-evident? And so on? Then the things you claimedare self-evident are notself-evident, because they arebased on a belief that is notself-evident. Then you’re stuck in aninfinite regress. … … If they’re invented, then anygiven rule can be “justified”,then they can be overturned.There is no objectivequantifier as to why they haveto be the case and notsomething else. If no cognitive process hasany foundation in reality,then no cognitive processactually reflects the externalworld. All propositions and valuejudgements are equally valid,because what they are based onis arbitrary and can beaccepted or rejected at will. Which would mean thatcontradictory claims andpropositions are all equallyvalid. Meaningful discourse isimpossible because everythingis arbitrary. Knowledge is impossible. If you can’t bridge the gapbetween what is in your headand the thing outside, thenyou can’t make any meaningfulpredication. Knowledge is impossible. How do you know those formsexist? How do you know your words canreach and appeal to thisimmaterial plane? How do you know yourimmaterial faculty correspondsproperly with that plane? … How do you know your mindapprehended the object ofintention? If a thief made a plan andused his reason to steal,would that mean that heactually reached that platonicrealm? Does this apathy hold for anyaction no matter howrevolting, as long as theintended effect is produced? So there is no objective rightor wrong? This leads to EthicalRelativism. There is noobjective reason to believethe things you are believing. Your position is arbitrary. … How do you know what is rightand what is wrong? How do you know reasonincludes avoiding wrongactions? That contradicts the initialcriteria given, which wasproducing the intentionedeffects. … How would you apply theplatonic forms in a practicalsense? How do you know what they are?(the things guiding you in theplatonic realm regarding rightand wrong) We can ground unity andmultiplicity in God, becausein our theology unity andmultiplicity are in a balancewithin the Godhead. We can ground the preconditions for knowledge because of: Ethics have a basis in DivineRevelation. The Logos comes down andreveals Himself, as man. Man is created in the imageand likeness of God. That isthe beginning of Orthodoxanthropology. The Holy Trinity is one inessence and three inhypostasis. Because of said balance, weneither fall into monism, norpolytheism, and we avoid theproblems associated with thoseparadigms. They are patterned after theuncreated patterns in thedivine mind, the logoi. There is analogia between, forexample the laws of logic inour minds and the laws oflogic in the divine mind. We can know God directlythrough the divine energiesbecause we have the EssenceEnergy Distinction (EED)doctrine. Therefore God is accessibleand all truth can be groundedin Him. Ethics can only be grounded inthe Orthodox understanding ofthe Trinity, because in theTrinity is contained everypossible and the highestconceivable good. And goodness is an attributeGod has in its fullness. How do you know that? Do you know the dual realm? Where do you ground telos? Can any of the gods do awaywith the rest? How do you have knowledge? … How do you know the canon ofScripture? Reality is divided intocreated and uncreated (even tothose who believe in mixturesand fusions). How do you know the One? How do you discern betweenunity and multiplicity? How do you know that? That’s arbitrary. In which case, because we seereality as multiple, the waywe see reality is also anillusion. So knowledge from reality isalso an illusion. Knowledge is impossible. How do you know the dualrealm? Then the dual realm isinaccessible to the mind. You can’t ground any knowledgewhatsoever. How do you discern between thecontent of the dual realm andthe material realm? How do you know that? That’s arbitrary. If Reason is impersonal, thenit doesn’t haveintentionality. Without intentionality, thereis no telos in Reason. Without telos in Reason, thereis no telos for this universe. Knowledge is impossible. Then there are at least somegods that can’t preventthemselves from gettingdestroyed. Then they are not omnipotentand are subject to a higherlaw. If they can prevent that, thenthey can’t destroy oneanother. You contradictedyourself. Then they are not capable ofactualizing all possibilities,and therefore do not haveknowledge of allpossibilities. Therefore they cannot groundknowledge. You’re stuck with autonomousepistemology. Therefore one thing by itselfmust either be created oruncreated. If a thing is both created anduncreated, then we would needto distinguish its createdparts from its uncreatedparts. Is the composite hypostasis(person) of Christ created oruncreated? Then He is not consubstantialwith us. Then there has to be twonatures due to the reasonsexplained above. (See refutation under“Autonomous Epistemology”) Is God’s revelation distinctfrom his essence? Is God’s revelation uncreated? (See refutation under“Absolute Divine Simplicity”) Is God’s revelation externalto God? Then God’s revelation iscreated and God is uncreated,so his revelation doesn’t giveaccess to himself, since youcannot know about theuncreated through createdmediums. God goes out of his numericaloneness in expression/act,because there is God and God’srevelation. It’s circular to say that youknow God from God’srevelation, which is Godhimself. Therefore you cannot knowanything about God. You can’t know any knowledgethat God reveals. God is not a created effect,so when the mind inclines to acreated effect it does notincline to God. Then the mind has access toGod’s essence. So the mind does not haveaccess to God. Which would mean that God’sessence is intelligible. Which would mean that God’sessence is circumscribed. God is limited. God is not divine. How do you know the canon youhave is the canon that Goddetermined? Appeal to masses fallacy.(Argumentum ad populum) … … … Which Church? Who were the people who putthe Bible together and do youbelieve in the same thingsthat they believe? So you believe in the samethings as the Holy Fathers of6th Council? Then you have no basis forclaiming their traditionregarding which books go intothe Bible, given the fact thatyou by your own admission havea different faith than them. No you don’t. Because (amongmany other reasons) you have adifferent canon from them.They approved of and includedthe deuterocanon in the Bible,which you reject. In fact,nobody had the Protestantcanon prior to the 16thcentury. You just contradictedyourself. Your position is arbitrary. That’s an appeal to emotion,and not a properjustification. So if somebody were to comealong and come up with theirown canon of, for example justthe 5 books of Moses for theOld Testament and only thebook of Galatians for the NewTestament; based on their ownpersonal feelings andinterpretations, how can youpossibly dispute that? You can’t. Your position isjust as baseless as theirs,it’s all arbitrary. That’s an invalid move,because the question of whichbooks go into the Bible is anepistemically prior questionto referencing andinterpreting the Bible. You are begging the questionby assuming you have thecorrect canon in order toprove your own position. And if you concede that youdon’t have the correct canon,then the content of the Bibleis completely up for grabs,and anyone can come up withtheir own individual canon,and they’re just as equallyvalid as yours, because it’sall arbitrary. By both his commandments andhis actions, he demonstratesnot only the divine ideal, butalso the human ideal. He establishes in a revelatoryway, the full criteria bywhich we can make logicalpredications and valuejudgements. So, the Incarnation fullycloses the gap that previouslyexisted between the mind ofman and the realm of forms. The One God, the Father, isnot inaccessible orincomprehensible. We can know the Father throughthe mediation of the Logos,the Incarnation, and theDivine Energies. God is personal, and we canbuild a relationship with Himand know Him by perceiving Hisdivine energies with ournoetic faculty, which is thehighest faculty of man. Man is tripartite:he is body, mind, and soul. Our nature is a reflection ofour purpose. The image and likeness of Godin man gives him the abilityto access and to know God. Man possesses capacities: The capacity of good inthoughts, words, and deeds. All these powers andpotentials that man possesses,demonstrate that he is made inthe image and likeness of God. The capacity to know what isgood, evil and neutral. The capacity to think,reflect, and solve problems. And his tripartite naturefurther demonstrates that heis made in the image of theHoly Trinity. What is natural for man isright reason and virtue. What is unnatural for man isthe inversion of reason, andturning his will away fromGod. Because man was created by Godfor virtue and for glory. That glory being the divineenergy which magnifies thehuman nature. So that human nature may havethe likeness of God and tolive in full communion withGod. The primary faculty by whichman does so is the nous— thesymphony between mind andheart. Man knows God properly, byconjoining his mind and hearttogether and turning his mindand heart towards God throughprayer, asceticism and thepractice of virtue. By doing this, man regains thelikeness of God, and thus hebegins to regain the knowledgeof God intellectually andontologically. This is how man is able toaccess God, through theenergies of God. And through this process, mangains self-knowledge and thushe begins to see reality moreclearly and more correctly. Yes No Because everything is relativeand there is no objectivetruth. Knowledge is completelyimpossible, there is not evensuch a thing as a relativetruth. Yes No Yes No Universals Laws ofLogic Meaning ofLanguage Existenceof Self TranscendentalCategories Autonomous Epistemology Theonomous Epistemology Use logic. Use a coherent web of beliefs. Use a foundation. No Yes Atheism Agnosticism Deism Theism Natural Theology It comes from self-evidentmaxims, such as logic,existence of the externalworld, universals, meaning oflanguage etc. They are self-evident.They just are. Yes No Yes No They don’t have anyontological status, meaningthat they don’t have anyexistence outside of ourmental faculties. They are forms outside themind, and they are located inthe ideal immaterial plane ofreality that is beyond thesenses. By using my immaterialfaculty. By checking whetherintentioned consequences andeffects are produced. Yes Yes Yes No,wrong things areunreasonable. Because of the platonic ideasin the platonic realm. Based on just my personalconvictions/feelings. I just do. Orthodoxy others It solves the problem of oneand the many. It avoids the never endingvicious circle that autonomousepistemologies are in. It avoids man-made arbitrarypropositions on ethics. The incarnation solves thediscontinuity problem found inPlatonism, conceptualism, andnominalism. It tells us who we are. Logoi Analogia Energies Everything is one. There is a material realm anda spiritual / transcendent /alternative realm. Stoicism Polytheism Islam, Judaism, orNontrinitarianism Catholicism Protestantism Oriental “Orthodoxy” From the One. We see an underlying unity inthe substance of reality. It is apparent to the mind. I just do. I just do. Because the multiplicity isjust an illusion. Yes No Because the dual realmsinterpenetrate each other. The substances of these twothings are apparent to theintellect. I just do. In the impersonal divine mind,or Reason. Yes No The gods can preventthemselves from being doneaway with, if they want. Uncreated Both Natural Theology Because of God’s revelation. Yes No Yes No Yes No God’s revelation is created(a created effect). God’s revelation is also hisessence. God determined it. Because that is the canon thatis commonly accepted by x,y,zgroups. Because God reveleaed it tothe Church. Based on my personal feelingswhen I read the Bible. Because of such-and-suchverse(s), or rather, myinterpretation of said verses. Yes No Yes No

Possibility of Knowledge

Preconditions for Knowledge

Autonomous Epistemology

Theonomous Epistemology

Relativism

Nihilism

Logic

Coherentism

Foundationalism

Orthodoxy

Theological Refutation of Other Paradigms

Self-evident Maxims

Conceptualism

Platonism

The One and the Many

Knowledge

Ethics

Incarnation

Anthropology

Monism

Dualism

Stoicism

Polytheism

Unitarianism

Absolute Divine Simplicity

Protestantism

Oriental “Orthodoxy”

Access

Comprehensibility

Nature

Purpose

Process