Justified Truth Belief in the Existence of God (2022)

Justified Truth Belief in the Existence of God (1)

Concerning knowledge, there are truth claims people believe they know and things they do not know. There is a problem concerning knowledge if people ask themselves what it means to know something and the difference between knowing and not knowing something. It is therefore insufficient to claim knowledge when one is not aware of what they do not know. Anyone who states a truth claim attempts to persuade someone of something a person believes in their mind as truth. Knowledge in itself becomes the vessel, medium, or tool used to discover what truth is. Knowledge is used analytically and is concerned with articulating what people believe in their minds as truth. Frequently, people practically use the word knowledge loosely in their vocabulary. Assertions and propositions are used as verbs claiming to know something as a truth claim. If a person is wrong about an assertion or proposition, according to justified true belief doctrine, the person did not have knowledge of the matter in its entirety. Primarily, the purpose of this essay is to examine the theory of knowledge and justified true belief. Secondly, to consider if justified true belief applies to the existence of God. The proposition “I know God exists” is analyzed for rationality, and what worldview is more reasonable to account for the logic within the structure of justified true belief as it applies to the proposition of the existence of God.

Assertions and propositions are similar in that they both have the capacity to declare something as true. The difference between the two is that an assertion puts forward a statement as true, while a proposition also can put a statement forward as true, but its content is open to truth and falsity (Blackburn 34, 387). For example, an assertion carries the expectancy to be true, while a proposition carries suggestion, supposition, or consideration as truth. Analyzing knowledge requires an acknowledgment of necessary conditions that are sufficient for propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge examines the knowledge within a proposition. For example, if Alexander the Great knows Aristotle is a philosopher, Alexander the Great has knowledge that Aristotle is a philosopher. Essentially, analyzing knowledge is the attempt to answer the question of what it takes to know something. At this point, it is important to understand a critical distinction between propositional knowledge and knowledge of how, where, when, and acquaintance. Particularly, propositional knowledge is not concerned with how, why, where, when Alexander the Great knows Aristotle. Instead, it is concerned with knowledge of the proposition itself or the subject. The sentence structure is as S knows that P. Alexander the Great is the subject (S) while knowing that Aristotle is a philosopher is the proposition or (P).

Traditionally, the conditions of knowledge are relatively basic, containing two conditions:

“(1) p is true

(2) S believes that p” (Hetherington 445).

In this structure, the proposition is true if the subject believes it to be true. On the other hand, if the subject does not believe the proposition to be true, it follows according to the two conditional standards that the proposition is not true. The problem with the two conditional standards is that it is vulnerable to subjectivity. The subject may believe the proposition as truth when the subject claimed as knowledge is objectively false. The subject may also believe the proposition as false when the subject denies the knowledge in the proposition is objectively true. Philosophers realize the mind’s vulnerability to believe error as accuracy. Each person is responsible and must examine why they believe what they believe. Regardless of one’s conclusion, each person remains with the quizzical question of how do I know? On the issue of knowledge, Russian – American writer and philosopher claim that “since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions” (3).

Philosophers have developed another set of conditions for knowledge called justified true belief (JTB) with three components instead of two, which is as follows:

“(1) P is true;

(Video) Justified True Belief & The Gettier Problem (Epistemology)

(2) S believes that p;

(3) S is justified in believing that p” (Ichikawa).

Most twentieth-century philosophers follow the three-component formula as a starting point to understanding what knowledge is in reality. The three components are also considered as the three conditions. These conditions, truth, belief, and justification, are necessary conditions in propositional logic. Epistemologists may agree that if a conclusion is false, the assertion or propositions is not knowledge. For example, during the 2020 elections, one may say, I know Trump will win. The result is Biden won, and it no longer makes sense to state someone knew Trump would win in 2020; therefore, there was and is no knowledge in the assertion “I know Trump will win in 2020.” Knowledge is valid if and only if the conclusion is true. Knowledge is a noun that, in everyday practical speech, is used loosely. Consequently, without consideration, people usually use knowledge terms overconfident and realize, in the end, they were wrong about their assertions or propositions.

The second condition seems simple to understand. The general principle in the belief condition is that the subject can only know what the subject believes. Therefore, if the subject does not believe the assertion or proposition the subject is claiming, that subject’s failure to believe prevents proper knowledge. Nonetheless, mere belief is not enough to claim knowledge. Using the earlier election example, believing Trump would win the election did not mean he would win. Neither that the believer knows that he would win. The point is no matter how depth the measure of belief is, the proposition was wrong in the end. No matter how much ambition was in the belief, there was no knowledge since the result was contrary to the subject’s belief. In short, if the proposition is false, yet the subject believes it to be true, in reality, there is no knowledge or truth in the proposition.

The final component is the justification condition. Justification is a necessary condition to defeat a lucky guess or accidentally arrive at a true belief. For example, suppose the subject is gambling at a casino and is rolling the dice. The subject at the casino believes the slot machine will provide a winning jackpot. By chance, the subject pulls the lever and wins the jackpot, and the subject’s belief is true. But, unfortunately, the subject’s belief is baseless and provides no justified reason for why the subject believed the subject would win. The subject’s belief was a mere guess and not knowledge. As a reminder, the justification condition is introduced to assure that the subject’s belief is not valid by accident or luck.

What must justification consist of? Ph.D. Matthias Steup writes, “it may be thought thatS‘s belief is true not merely because of luck if that belief has a high objective probability of truth, that is, if it is formed or sustained by reliable cognitive processes or faculties” (SEP). Following Steup’s logic, it is reasonable to assert that objectivity and reason are high qualities of the JTB process, especially in the justification condition. For example, a subject proposes knowledge of being burnt if the subject places its hand over the fire for an excessive amount of time. There exist objective factors in this proposition. Factor one; fire is objectively hot. Never under any circumstance is a flame cold. Factor two; people are vulnerable to the sensation of pain. Although levels of pain are subjective, pain itself is a mutually universal sensation. It is probable that the subject has experienced being burnt by fire or heat and thinks if the subject places its hand over the fire, it will burn the subject. This example reveals objectivity and reason, which lead to all conditions of JTB. The subject believes the fire will burn, and the belief is justified based on high objectivity and sound reason. The end result is true and reveals the subject had acquired knowledge.

Some modern epistemologists believe that JTB is inadequate to determine knowledge. However, most may agree that the three conditions are necessary for knowledge yet are not necessarily sufficient on a case-by-case basis. The reasoning for the proposition against JTB is based on demonstrations revealed by Edmond Gettier. For example, consider a man and his son are driving through the country and stop for a break. While resting, they notice several items in their view, such as; a tractor, a horse, a combine, a silo, and a barn. The three necessary conditions of JTB are apparent. Moreover, they both notice items they are familiar with through past experiences; therefore, it is acquired knowledge to know what a tractor or barn is. Concerning the tractor, they see the tractor and believe it’s a tractor, and in fact, it is a tractor that equals a JTB. However, unknown to them, the locals set fake barns throughout the county with only one actual barn remaining (Turri 247-259). Since they did not know about the fake barns, they could have easily mistaken one of the fake barns for an authentic barn, but they recognized the true barn accidentally. Epistemologists would not consider this case a JTB but a Gettier case, which defeats a JTB.

Gettier cases reveal the justification condition susceptible to human fallibility. Moreover, they reveal that even seemingly justified beliefs result in lucky guesses that are incompatible with knowledge. The intent of some epistemologists is not to refute JTB but to modify and repair it. Principally, it is critical to find a way to exclude lucky guesses to determine actual knowledge. One of the methods explained by American Philosopher Linda Zagzebski is adding a fourth justification which becomes JTB+X. The fourth condition prevents the original justification condition from becoming Gettiered. The fourth condition is necessary as Zagzebski cleverly explains that “as long as the property that putatively converts true belief into knowledge is analyzed in such a way that it is strongly linked with the truth, but does not guarantee it, it will always be possible to devise cases in which the link between such a property and the truth is broken but regained by accident” (69).

(Video) PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Analyzing Knowledge #1 (The Gettier Problem) [HD]

Since justified true belief is applicable to determine knowledge, is it only applicable to propositional logic, or is it applicable to belief systems such as worldviews or religious beliefs? For example, is it justified as knowledge to assert or propose that one knows God exists? The complexity perhaps is that someone is claiming knowledge of something that is not tangible or metaphysically obvious to the senses. Philosophy of religion offers some insight through the school of Reformed epistemology (RE) as it concerns itself with the theory of knowledge relating to the belief in God. Although reformed epistemology is contrary to evidentialism, that belief in God is justified by evidence alone; RE goes beyond physical evidence into the realm of metaphysics and epistemology. Thus, for example, RE believes knowledge of God is universal and innate within all people. Although scriptural reference is available, RE are inspired by the writings of 16th century reformed theologian John Calvin who wrote that “there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead . . . so thoroughly has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the breasts of all men. Since then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart” (ICR).

Based on Calvin’s writings and reformed epistemologists, a presupposition for RE is that knowledge of God is innate. At this point, some may consider this a ridiculous concept since RE are arguing for knowledge of an immaterial existing being. But is it genuinely far-fetched since many immaterial ideas such as truth, beliefs, logic, reason, and morality are irrefutably accepted? Truth, logic, reason, and morality are arguably innate faculties of the human being and are used and accepted as existing immaterially daily to our convenience. These are innate faculties all have knowledge of; not just knowledge, but innate knowledge. The casing point is that innate knowledge is possible. Not only possible, but innate immaterial innate knowledge is possible; therefore, excluding the possibility that an immaterial being exists, such as God, is not an invalid idea. Neither is the idea that if God exists, He imparted an innate knowledge of Himself in every human, considering the rationality provided by Calvin and reformed epistemologists.

Of these innate immaterial ideas, consider the laws of logic. They are necessary for any assertion, argument, or proposition to carry any meaning. So, for example, in the law of non-contradiction, a statement such as “God is an immaterial existing being” could also mean “God is not an immaterial existing being.” Without the law of non-contradiction, any statement could have an opposite or arbitrary meaning. Without the laws of logic as a whole, meaning and knowledge become impossible to receive or articulate. But why are the laws of logic relevant to the idea of innate knowledge of God’s existence? The answer is because these ideas inevitably lead to a belief or a worldview. The proposition that knowledge of God is innate and a justified true belief stems from a biblical worldview, compared to those who deny the proposition and accept a non-biblical worldview.

Consider the following deductive argument based on biblical principles:

  1. Through the bible, God reveals Himself.
  2. God reveals Himself as a logical being.
  3. The laws of logic exist as a reflection of how God thinks.
  4. God created humans with the capacity to think according to the laws of logic.
  5. Logic and its laws are innate in all humans, evidenced by their way of thinking.
  6. It logically follows that God’s knowledge is innate and transcendent to all humans.

This rational structure also creates accountability for a belief system of the laws of logic. This reasoning creates an absolute standard as a basis for justifying the existence of the laws of logic; otherwise, how does one account for the existence of the laws of logic without an absolute standard? Without a universal standard, an explanation for the existence of the laws of logic is arbitrary. Without God as the absolute standard for the laws of logic, one may find it necessary to deny immaterial existence or appeal to some form of skepticism. The other option is to implicitly borrow or steal from the biblical worldview to account for the use of the laws of logic to make a case against God’s existence or that belief in God is irrational. In this case, believing the existence of God is an irrational idea; what is meant is, that knowledge of God’s existence is not a justified true belief.

Nevertheless, if what is necessary for a justified true belief in the existence of God or to propose that someone knows God exists are the three necessary conditions; truth, belief, and justification, then by the reasoning mentioned in this essay, all conditions meet the standard. Corresponding with Steup, a high degree of objectivity and reason justify the truth that God exists as the absolute standard of immaterial ideas such as knowledge and logic. Therefore, those that propose they know God exists should not consider their statement irrational but instead should consider it a justified true belief; congruent with the position of Dr. Deane Peter Baker’s interpretation of American Philosopher Alvin Plantinga “If the A/C model is true, and God has in fact installed in us a sensus divinitatis, then holders of such beliefs are justified in their beliefs because they violate no epistemic duties in doing so, and their beliefs are also warranted because they are the result of a properly functioning epistemic faculty that is aimed at truth” (78).

It is impractical to assume one can communicate without truth claims. One of the problems that lead to some believing there are no truth claims stems from the attempt to define knowledge. Within the theory of knowledge, epistemologists attempt to reveal how many suppose they have knowledge and truth when in reality they may not. Without analyzing knowledge, it becomes difficult to analyze one’s beliefs in the form of introspection. Everyone who communicates using truth claims believes they have truth in their mind, not realizing what they claim as knowledge is inaccurate. The study of metaphysics and epistemology have become instruments to discover what conditions are necessary to define knowledge and attain truth. Necessary conditions for knowledge exist, and modern epistemologists systematically use the doctrine of justified true belief to assure someone has justifiably acquired knowledge without accident or chance. Explicitly, JTB applies to assertions and propositions concerning God’s existence or knowledge of God. Knowledge of God is, therefore, a justified true belief.

Works Cited

(Video) God's REALITY of the Justified Life

Blackburn, Simon. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 2016.


Hetherington, Stephen. Metaphysics and Epistemology: A Guided Anthology. John Wiley &

Sons. West Sussex. 2014. Print.

Rand, Ayn. Philosophy: Who Needs It. New American Library. New York.1984. Print. Ichikawa. Jenkins, Joshua. “The Analysis of Knowledge.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/.

Steup, Matthias. Epistemology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2020.


(Video) Jack Angstreich questions Matt adams on how god has justification for his beliefs.

Turri, John. “Is Knowledge Justified True Belief?”Synthese, vol. 184, no. 3, 2012, pp. 247-259.

ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/is-knowledge-justified-true-belief/docview/1111803075/se-2?accountid=8289, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9773-8.

Zagzebski, Linda. “The Inescapability of Gettier Problems.” The Philosophical Quarterly

(1950-), vol. 44, no. 174, [Oxford University Press, University of St. Andrews, Scots Philosophical Association], 1994, pp. 65–73, https://doi.org/10.2307/2220147.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion Book One: The Knowledge of God Naturally

Implanted in the Human Mind. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.iv.html.

Baker, Deane-Peter. “Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology: What’s the Question?” International

Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 57, no. 2, Springer, 2005, pp. 77–103, doi:10.1007/s11153-004-1681-8.

(Video) Our New Lease on Life (Justification)


What is justified as true belief? ›

A true belief is any claim you accept that corresponds to how things are in the world, and a justified true belief is a true belief that has proper evidence. In terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, all of these parts are necessary for knowledge, but none of them alone is sufficient to count as knowledge.

What is the belief of existence of God? ›

existence of God, in religion, the proposition that there is a supreme supernatural or preternatural being that is the creator or sustainer or ruler of the universe and all things in it, including human beings.

What are the 3 main arguments for the existence of God? ›

The three traditional proofs of God's existence

The attempt to provide proofs or arguments for the existence of God is known as natural theology. This undertaking has traditionally consisted of three key arguments: The ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments.

Can religious belief be justified? ›

Evidentialism implies that full religious belief is justified only if there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having a full belief that there is a God.

What is an example of a justified belief? ›

One prominent account of justification is that a belief is justified for a person only if she has a good reason for holding it. If you were to ask me why I believe the sky is blue and I were to answer that I am just guessing or that my horoscope told me, you would likely not consider either a good reason.

Who said justified true belief? ›

Cases like these, in which justified true belief seems in some important sense disconnected from the fact, were made famous in Edmund Gettier's 1963 paper, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”. Gettier presented two cases in which a true belief is inferred from a justified false belief.

What are the 5 proofs of God's existence? ›

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways to Prove the Existence of God
  • The First Way: Motion.
  • The Second Way: Efficient Cause.
  • The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity.
  • The Fourth Way: Gradation.
  • The Fifth Way: Design.

What is moral argument for the existence of God? ›

The argument from morality is an argument for the existence of God. Arguments from morality tend to be based on moral normativity or moral order. Arguments from moral normativity observe some aspect of morality and argue that God is the best or only explanation for this, concluding that God must exist.

Do you believe in the existence of God give reasons on the basis of the lesson a letter to God? ›

Answer. Answer: Yes according to me i believe in god. But in return the postmaster gave him some of his part of the salary and lencho have complete faith in god and he again wrote a letter to the god asking the rest of the money.

Which is the strongest argument for the existence of God? ›

The single most powerful argument attempting to prove God's existence is a version of the “argument from design,” based on what is called the anthropic cosmological principle, proposed by John D.

Does God exist Yes or no? ›

Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God. And if you believe in God, it doesn't matter what scientists discover about the Universe – any cosmos can be thought of as being consistent with God.

How does the first cause argument prove the existence of God? ›

Scientific discoveries, eg the Big Bang theory , can be seen to support the first cause argument. If God caused the 'Big Bang', then God is the 'first cause' that brought the cosmos (universe) into existence. It confirms to the theist that there is purpose to the cosmos and a place for God as its 'creator'.

Why belief in God is irrational? ›

Belief in God is considered irrational for two primary reasons: lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary (usually the problem of evil, which won't be discussed in this essay). Note that both of these positions reject the rationality of belief in God on the basis of an inference.

What is religious belief? ›

Religious beliefs are the ideas and accepted tenets of any religion. While religious beliefs are essential to a religion, they are not the entirety of religion; a religion must also have practices and cultural rituals that its adherents engage in.

Why do people believe in religion? ›

The quick and easy answer to why people are religious is that God – in whichever form you believe he/she/they take(s) – is real and people believe because they communicate with it and perceive evidence of its involvement in the world.

What is the purpose of truth? ›

Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil people's plans and may even cost them their lives.

How do you show that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge? ›

True belief is not sufficient for knowledge; since a belief can be true by accident or lucky guesswork, and knowledge cannot be a matter of luck or accident. 2. So knowledge requires justification—i.e., having sufficient reasons for one's beliefs.

What makes something justified? ›

One way of understanding this claim is in terms of justification: a reason justifies or makes it right for someone to act in a certain way. This is why normative reasons are also called “justifying” reasons.

What is the JTB theory? ›

The JTB account holds that knowledge is equivalent to justified true belief; if all three conditions (justification, truth, and belief) are met of a given claim, then we have knowledge of that claim.

What is justified false belief? ›

In the “first person present (indicative)”, the conjunctive reading of (justified) false belief seems irrevocably contradictory: “I―or we―believe falsely (take to be true falsely)...” Therefore, Wittgenstein and Macarthur deny that for the first person present any (justified) belief in a false proposition is possible.

Do you agree with Plato's statement knowledge is a justified true belief? ›

Thus, for Plato, knowledge is justified, true belief. Since truth is objective, our knowledge of true propositions must be about real things. According to Plato, these real things are Forms. Their nature is such that the only mode by which we can know them is rationality.

How many proofs of God are there? ›

The Quinque viæ (Latin for "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments for the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica.

Who created God? ›

We ask, "If all things have a creator, then who created God?" Actually, only created things have a creator, so it's improper to lump God with his creation. God has revealed himself to us in the Bible as having always existed. Atheists counter that there is no reason to assume the universe was created.

Which term refers to the justification of God in the face of evil? ›

Theodicy. God has a morally sufficient reason for each act of evil; The justification of God in the face of evil. Moral Evil.

What are the three main arguments for the existence of God quizlet? ›

three sorts of epistemic arguments for theism: 'cosmological arguments', 'teleological arguments' and 'ontological arguments'.

Can objective morality exist without God? ›

According to Craig, there can be no objective moral truths without God, and since there are objective moral truths, God must exist. One traditional counter to the argument that God is required to ground objective morality is that we cannot possibly rely on God to tell us what's morally right and wrong.

What did Immanuel Kant say about God? ›

In a work published the year he died, Kant analyzes the core of his theological doctrine into three articles of faith: (1) he believes in one God, who is the causal source of all good in the world; (2) he believes in the possibility of harmonizing God's purposes with our greatest good; and (3) he believes in human ...

Why should we believe in God? ›

God knows everything we are going through at this very moment and everything we will go through in the future. He knows the best way to handle every situation so we get the best possible outcome and we need to trust him with that. We need to follow his path and trust that he knows best, because he does.

What is the message of the story letter to God? ›

Solution : The story "The Letter To God" is about the faith and believe in the God which Lencho had. At the time when his crops were destroyed he find God to be the person who would help me. His faith in God made the money reach him.

What is your perception about trust in God give your feedback about Lencho's faith in God? ›

Lencho have complete faith in God because when his field destroyed due to hailstorm his only hope was help from God . He write a letter to God and addressed it to God and was not surprised when he received the money in return which he believed was from God. Lencho's faith in God was one that was unshakable.

Is an ethical theory that justifies as ethical principles are commands of God? ›

Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires.

Does God Look Like? ›

What Does God Look Like? | Igniter Media | Church Video - YouTube

What does the term theology mean? ›

Theology literally means 'thinking about God'. In practice it usually means studying the sources of Christian belief like the Bible and the Creeds, and exploring the meaning of Christianity for today.

Does God exist according to science? ›

Science doesn't have the processes to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science studies and attempts to explain only the natural world while God, in most religions, is supernatural.

How do we know the Bible is true? ›

We have copies of the manuscripts and throughout history these copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. Despite common skeptical claims that the Bible has often been changed through the centuries, the physical evidence tells another story. The New Testament records are incredibly accurate.

How do we know God is with us? ›

This can happen through prayer, contemplation and/or time in the Bible. We begin to discern God's voice over the noise of our world as we give time to these disciplines. The Holy Spirit begins speaking to us. We begin to hear God through those around us, circumstances and even our conscience.

What are the 3 main arguments for the existence of God? ›

The three traditional proofs of God's existence

The attempt to provide proofs or arguments for the existence of God is known as natural theology. This undertaking has traditionally consisted of three key arguments: The ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments.

Why is God the uncaused cause? ›

Since those laws govern time and space, time and space itself must have a cause that brought it into existence. Therefore, the cause of time and space, by necessity, must exist outside of time and space in order to be able to cause time and space into existence. That cause is God, who is the only uncaused cause.

Why is the cosmological argument weak? ›

Weakness: Inconsistent notion of necessary being. The Cosmological argument states that everything must have a cause yet explain this with the idea of an un-caused being who was the first the first cause. This is inconsistent with the idea of an uncaused cause since the solution itself is an uncaused cause.

Is the belief of God a basic form of belief? ›

Unlike what most people in the past thought, religious belief is not in any sense arrived at or inferred on the basis of other known propositions. On the contrary, belief in God is taken to be as basic as a person's belief in the existence of himself, of the chair in which he is sitting, or the past.

Is religion a delusion? ›

Religious beliefs are typically incompatible with scientific evidence and observable reality, but aren't considered to be delusions.

What is epistemology in Christianity? ›

“Many people-including Christians and scholars-are unaware that there is a growing treasure trove of philosophical explorations in Christian epistemology: the study of how one might know, or rationally believe, that Christianity is true.

Do all religions believe in God? ›

Lewis is correct. Most religions, in some way, attempt to contemplate the divine; and some of them get closer than others. In this sense we can say that all religions lead to God.

What are the 4 types of beliefs? ›

4 Kinds of Beliefs
  • Meta: beliefs about beliefs.
  • Perceptions: beliefs about how the world seems to be, based on the evidence I have.
  • Opinions: beliefs about how I should interpret reality. ...
  • Predictions: beliefs about how I think things will end up in the future based on what I know now.
11 Jun 2015

What is an example of a belief? ›

The definition of a belief is an opinion or something that a person holds to be true. Faith in God is an example of a belief. Faith or trust in the reality of something; often based upon one's own reasoning, trust in a claim, desire of actuality, and/or evidence considered.

When did humans start believing in God? ›

Prehistoric evidence of religion. The exact time when humans first became religious remains unknown, however research in evolutionary archaeology shows credible evidence of religious-cum-ritualistic behavior from around the Middle Paleolithic era (45–200 thousand years ago).

What if you dont believe in God? ›

2 The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind.

Who believe in God is called? ›

The correct answer is option (B) Theist. A person who believes in the existence of God is called theist.

What is justified true belief Goldman? ›

Essentially, Goldman's position is that so long as a process produces more true beliefs than false beliefs, then we can call the process "reliable" and in turn say that the beliefs it produces are justified. In short, if the process is reliable, then the belief is justified.

What is the difference between true belief and knowledge? ›

A belief is the subjective requirement for knowledge. “Knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief.” In other words, a belief can be considered knowledge as long as it is a justified truth. This notion is also supported by the Belief-Knowledge Continuum and by Plato's Theory of Knowledge.

Why does having justification true belief is not sufficient to claim that you have knowledge of something? ›

1. True belief is not sufficient for knowledge; since a belief can be true by accident or lucky guesswork, and knowledge cannot be a matter of luck or accident. 2. So knowledge requires justification—i.e., having sufficient reasons for one's beliefs.

What makes a belief a belief? ›

Beliefs have been distinguished according to their degree of certainty: a surmise or suspicion, an opinion, or a conviction. Belief becomes knowledge only when the truth of a proposition becomes evident to the believer. Belief in someone or something is basically different from belief that a proposition is true.

Is Goldman an Externalist? ›

Goldman's Externalism: Reliabilism

The externalist about justification says that you and your internal epistemic duplicates can differ with respect to what you're justified in believing.

What is Goldman Reliabilism? ›

Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth conduciveness of a belief forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification. '

What is the most reliable particular methods of truth? ›

Correspondence is held by many philosophers to be the most valid of the criteria of truth. An idea that corresponds to its object is indeed true, but determining if the correspondence is perfect requires additional tests of truth.

What is justified true belief according to Plato? ›

Plato's justified true belief applies in the simplest cases of knowledge where knowledge is a based on a belief that is composed of a relation of the mind to some object outside of itself, and the correspondence of the belief and the subject-independent object can be checked.

What is the purpose of truth? ›

Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil people's plans and may even cost them their lives.

Is justification necessary for knowledge? ›

In other words, we might say, justification, truth, and belief are all necessary for knowledge, but they are not jointly sufficient for knowledge; there is a fourth condition – namely, that no false beliefs be essentially involved in the reasoning that led to the belief – which is also necessary.

What is justified false belief? ›

In the “first person present (indicative)”, the conjunctive reading of (justified) false belief seems irrevocably contradictory: “I―or we―believe falsely (take to be true falsely)...” Therefore, Wittgenstein and Macarthur deny that for the first person present any (justified) belief in a false proposition is possible.

Why is truth not a sufficient condition for knowledge? ›

The Belief Requirement

Truth obviously isn't sufficient for knowledge, though: lots of things are true without their being known at all. The mere fact that p is true doesn't mean that someone knows that p, since no-one may ever have thought about it, or people may have thought about it, but actually disbelieve it.

Does knowledge have to be true? ›

Knowledge is a belief; but not just any belief. Knowledge is always a true belief; but not just any true belief. (A confident although hopelessly uninformed belief as to which horse will win — or even has won — a particular race is not knowledge, even if the belief is true.)

Is a belief a truth? ›

A belief is best defined as an attitude that something is the case or that some propositions about the world are true. Philosophers use the term “belief” to refer to attitudes about the world. To believe something means to consider it to be true, but not all our beliefs are true.

Why is belief so important? ›

Beliefs are important because behavior is important and your behavior depends on your beliefs. Everything you do can be traced back to beliefs you hold about the world—everything from brushing your teeth to your career.

What is the purpose of a belief? ›

Beliefs are basically the guiding principles in life that provide direction and meaning in life. Beliefs are the preset, organized filters to our perceptions of the world (external and internal).


1. Knowledge Justified True Belief
2. Anselm & the Argument for God: Crash Course Philosophy #9
3. What is JUSTIFICATION by FAITH according to the BIBLE?
(DLM Christian Lifestyle)
4. Weeks 2&3 Video 4 Justified True Belief
(Brian Porter)
5. The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7
6. His Own Worst Enemy: The Rise and Fall of Jon Jones | Part 3
(Beige Frequency)

Top Articles

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Dong Thiel

Last Updated: 11/09/2022

Views: 5858

Rating: 4.9 / 5 (59 voted)

Reviews: 82% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Dong Thiel

Birthday: 2001-07-14

Address: 2865 Kasha Unions, West Corrinne, AK 05708-1071

Phone: +3512198379449

Job: Design Planner

Hobby: Graffiti, Foreign language learning, Gambling, Metalworking, Rowing, Sculling, Sewing

Introduction: My name is Dong Thiel, I am a brainy, happy, tasty, lively, splendid, talented, cooperative person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.