Justification And Justification For Truth

Sometimes when we hear the word justification we find it accompanied by other “ation” words: sanctification, glorification, propitiation, regeneration and imputation. These words are from time to time used interchangeably. This can be confusing and needs to be clarified before continuing. Imputation is where credit has been given. It can also mean to lay responsibility on someone. With God, imputation is where He accounts righteousness to the believer. Sanctification is separate from justification. Justification is about one’s position with God; sanctification is about one’s spiritual condition. Propitiation is defined in “Reformation tradition as the satisfaction of divine wrath upon sin”. Regeneration is the creation of a new heart and new spirit. This change of heart and spirit is what allows us to live righteous lives. Glorification comes once we receive our heavenly reward. It is the completion of our salvation.

In assessing the argument, it can be said that it is a valid argument since the conclusions logically follow from the arguments given they are true.

We hear justifications and excuses every day. Both words in our world can be used in similar fashion. That being said, within the world of law, a justification is about giving reasonable reason for what was done or not. Excuses in the other hand, is a defense that recognizes a crime was committed, but that for the defendant, although committing a socially undesirable crime, conviction and punishment would be morally inappropriate. Justification and excuses are the most common affirmative defenses utilized to be exculpated from a criminal offence. Throughout this essay justifications and excuses are going to be explored in depth as there is a fine line between them. Justifications and excuses are going to be compared and contrasted. Also, court cases are going to be used as examples to expand on this two simple but yet complicated words.

First, for most of the time prisons have existed, governments didn't have secure facilities where violent criminals could be housed for long periods of time. Small town or county prisons were only useful for short stays, and state prisons weren't much better. Not being able to provide for inmates, or have space to hold them for life sentences led to the death penalty because options were limited.

The article “The Attack on Truth” by Mclntyre Lee is about willful ignorance and the fact people are very stubborn. Willful ignorance is when they keep them self from the facts and the truth that is right. The one very likely candidate is the Internet. It has gotten to the point where very little people know simple things like when the dinosaurs lived. It is all because of the internet and the fact that the kids these days don't go around and fact check because they have “better things to do.” This article is about kids And adults not learning to tell the fake news between the real news.

The Doctrine of Justification has been a vital teaching throughout the history of Christianity and it is the fulcrum upon which the Church balances; even minor tweaking could result in drastic changes to our core beliefs. This Doctrine can be summarized to say that Justification is God’s declaration, that only through faith in his son’s suffering are we saved and are righteous in God’s sight. This teaching is as old as our religion and we can see this through its expression from both old and new testaments writers. Justification is at the heart of our faith, so it is important to be able to understand and analyze this fundamental Doctrine.

The second of which Principles of sufficient reason is defended is by “claiming that although it is not known to be true, it is, nevertheless, a presupposition of reason, a basic assumption that rational people make” (Rowe 55). A person for principle of sufficient reason says that all of us already think that principle of sufficient reason is true. The problem with this is that even if we do believe that principle of sufficient reason is true, us believing in it does not make it true. I believe in one thing and another person might believe in something completely different. Holding ones belief in some subject does not make it true nor does it make it false.

Epistemological skepticism is the idea that individuals lack knowledge or justification for a specific group of propositions (Barnett, 2014). Skepticism with respect to all propositions is known as global skepticism, and it reveals that knowledge is nonexistent (2014). The regress problem is a difficulty in epistemology, where an idea has to be justified, because the justification itself has to have further reasoning (2014). The infinite regress argument concludes that individuals lack justification and knowledge (since knowledge requires justification) through its premises, but non-doxastic evidence ends the regress argument without circularity or arbitrariness.

Today’s political climate is a polarizing topic. Every form of media has an opinion on it from major news outlets to adult animated sitcoms. Harry Frankfurt’s book “On Truth” is relevant to the political storm that is brewing in American society due to the manipulation of the truth by political figures and mainstream media. Frankfurt approaches the importance of truth in a unique fashion and vilifies lies and those who spread them. This directly relates to the election year and how the truth is shrouded in mystery. The Daodejing and Socrates’ writings, while both important in literature are not as pertinent to the charged political climate that is taking place in the United States right now.

In this case it seems that were given all the conditions for establishing consideration, but if we look more closely at the details of the case we will realize that there were

The basis of this second rule appears to be an endeavor to take a claim and examine it from all possible perspectives, and to test it against all possible situations. Neither of which is, in effect, possible. One could spend an entire lifetime looking at all the possible situations in which a claim could be contested and would not even come close to revealing

In his 1963 article “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, Edmund Gettier pointed out the fault in the traditional definition of knowledge and presented two counterexamples. The problem created by the two counterexamples is called the Gettier problem. In detail, the Gettier problem is whether a true belief based on invalid reasons counts as knowledge. My own Gettier counterexample is as follows. One day, my dad and I went to Costco Gas Station and there were already a lot of cars waiting for gasoline filling. So we queued in the last. When we were the next one to use the pump, there were two cars using the pumps, with one in the front and the other following it. My dad then asked me, of the two cars in front of us, which one would leave first.

This move is both calculative and effective, as it plants the idea of using reason a means to annul prejudice, and mirrors how Montaigne will later spin his essay against the reader as this seed gradually

In his book ‘Meditations on First Philosophy’, Descartes writes that all beliefs, even the most irresistible convictions, may not correspond to how the world really is; and this is something that defenders of the correspondence theory are arguably unable to dismiss. As a result, the coherence theory takes a different approach and argues that a proposition (truth-bearer) is true if it ‘fits’ or coheres with a specific set of beliefs (truth-maker). These beliefs may belong either to the individual (and include the laws of logic, for example), to human beings at the ultimate stage of historical development, or to a system of beliefs held by a God or the Absolute (Walker, 1989). So in the example where Billy believes that ‘dogs have five legs’, his claim can be assessed by considering if this statement coheres with a specific set of true beliefs. For instance, it may be commonly understood that dogs have four legs not five, that there has never been a dog with more than four legs, and that no one apart from Billy has ever claimed that dogs can have more than four legs. Thus, it follows that the key to determining whether Billy’s statement is true or false is “internal consistency and logical standards” (Dunwoody, 2009, p. 117).

Truth can be defined as conformity to reality or actuality and in order for something to be “true” it must be public, eternal, and independent. If the “truth” does not follow these guidelines then it cannot be “true.” Obviously in contrary anything that goes against the boundaries of “truth” is inevitably false. True and false, in many cases does not seem to be a simple black and white situation, there could sometimes be no grounds to decide what is true and what is false. All truths are a matter of opinion. Truth is relative to culture, historical era, language, and society. All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths) and there is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true