I'm an Eastern Orthodox inquirer, but have spent the last 30 years of my life a degenerate hooligan solipsist.
I want to be right with God.
If you can show me the logic that refutes Orthodoxy, I'll stop inquiring into it.
Epistemic justification is a pre-requisite.
You can be a very intelligent, honest and dedicated mind - without ever testing your presuppositions.
The only way to avoid this is to get rid of your presuppositions, which is what coherentism forces.
Imagine two minds with zero beliefs. Even the mundane qualia beliefs.
These two have the same web.
Now imagine an innumerable amount of experiences, some shared and some exclusive to one or the other (but all in the same world).
They may have different beliefs, but nothing could be contradictory if they're both committed to logic (coherence).
An example: a force which pulls both minds downwards. There's no possible shared world, such that one mind could rationally have a web which affirms upwards.
Only when one mind allows for dogma or infinite regression could they affirm a flat earth, or any other absurd claim.
To be super clear: you can be wrong about things, but two rigorous coherentists can't hold contradictory beliefs if they share a world.
The word pray didn't exist until like 1200.
If you're talking about prayer from Scripture, the septuagint uses προσεύχομαι (the verb form) to mean 'wish, vow, petition'
The masoretic is simpler, but also used more loosely and often directed at temporal masters.
I can't tell what you're suggesting with the last bit. Are you saying 'worship is: prayer and bowing' or 'worship is prayer is bowing'?
If worship = prayer you're not taking it very seriously imo.
I don't know if your 'is' was a predicate or identical operator though.
Prayer being synonymous or exclusive to worship is a very modern development.
'pray tell' was a common phrase not even 100 years ago.
'i pray of you' died out a little while before that.
Closer to the truth is a fine phrase.
The Truth is Christ, the only complete and fully coherent web exists within God's mind.
We're all finite, we cannot exhaustively search all information to weed out contradictions, also we don't have ready access to things outside of our experiences.
We cannot attain individual epistemic certainty, but we can rigorously introspect and be sure to not hold contradictions with the information we can access.
If a coherentist Muslim and Christian both sat together in good faith and evaluated one anothers beliefs, they would eventually arrive at the same web. The eventually part becomes increasingly longer as the dedication to logic gets weaker though.
You could have two perfectly coherent webs which disagree, but only when they're small. Think before the age of 6ish. The older you get, the more information you have to contend with, you either become dogmatic about some axiom or allow for infinite regression.
I'm truly of the belief that we're all born coherentist until we need to fit something in that we can't justify logically.
I'm sorry to do this, but in order to help you learn the framework I have to ignore your question.
The way in which the question is asked betrays the system, and to answer it I would have to fall back into correspondence theory.
I can give you the cluster justification for the Christian God, and then if you understood the framework properly you would see that Zeus just never enters the web.
TAG (Transcendental Argument)-
- Logic and science require transcendent rational ground
- Objective morality needs personal source
- Triune God resolves one-and-many
- Atheism yields to brute facts or incoherence
- Grounds induction and knowledge
Scriptural Support-
- Coherent narrative
- Christ's divinity claims
- Fulfilled prophecies
- Resurrection eyewitness accounts
- Creation to redemption arc
- Apostolic confirmation
Orthodox Church-
- Apostolic succession
- Patristic consensus
- Liturgical theosis
- Saints and miracles
- Essence-energies distinction
- Heresy resistance
Explanatory Power-
- Creation and fine-tuning
- Consciousness and morality
- Evil and redemption
- Beauty and meaning
- Faith-reason harmony
- Prophecy fulfillment
Historical Evidence-
- Empty tomb
- Resurrection appearances
- Disciple transformation
- Early Church growth
- Manuscript reliability
- Cultural impacts
Experiential & Personal-
- Holy Spirit witness
- Prayer and repentance
- Theosis transformation
- Saint testimonies
- Moral intuition
- Daily coherence
I would say this is listing in a way which most aligns with someone new to coherentism. A foundationalist would think of these as strongest to weakest claims. If any of these concepts need clarification let me know, I would rather be concise on the front end.
I understand what you're asking, but because you're unfamiliar with how the system works- you won't understand the answer.
Until now I've only been speaking about the faults from foundationalism. If you would like to understand coherentism better so that I can answer, I'm happy to help.
The simple answer is that the Christian God doesn't contradict with anything else she Zeus does. The more thorough answer will look like gibberish unless you're familiar with how cluster justification works.