I despise materialism and empiricism.

How do you explain the existence of self-evident truths, such as the law of non-contradiction, when materialism denies the objective reality of abstract entities? If you, as a materialist empiricist, deny the existence of universal laws and abstract entities or transcendental things, are you not essentially relying on an epistemological category (like empiricism itself) to make this claim? Does this not make your own position self-destructive?

If all knowledge that is not empirically verifiable is considered immaterial, how can we then acknowledge the significance of concepts such as justice, morality, or other immaterial concepts that, while not measurable, still have profound effects on our lives, in the sense that we know that we know? This also includes BELIEVING in empiricism.

To say that there are no immaterial laws is a question of knowledge, and I would like to know whether you arrived at that statement based on material or immaterial concepts.

Would you not say that our knowledge is rather abstractions and interpretations arising from sensory data that occur in our minds? If there were no material world, we would have no material perceptions, but our ability to think and understand abstractly would still exist. For our consciousness itself is not material, but of an immaterial nature, and thus are the immaterial terms and concepts that we conceive, are they not? When you say 'there is nothing immaterial,' is that statement, conceptually, in an immaterial state or not?

God (especially from the Byzantine Orthodox perspective of God) serves as the sole source to justify everything, such as transcendental things (e.g., logic, morality, laws, etc.) ☦️❤️☦️