1. Suppose you’re in a conversation and the person you are with claims to know that God exists (or that God does not exist—it’s up to you). What does such a knowledge claim amount to? In other words, what sorts of conditions have to be satisfied for such a knowledge claim to be legitimate? Do you think such a person could meet those conditions? Why? Be sure to discuss not only the classical model of knowledge, but also the challenges posed to it by basic beliefs and Gettier counterexamples. (Be sure to give a Gettier-type example and explain its relevance to the knowledge issue.)
Answer: The purpose one would claim to a specific analysis of knowledge would be to cite conditions that are necessary to that individual and jointly sufficient for propositional knowledge. According to The Analysis of Knowledge there are three parts to the traditional analysis of knowledge. The three parts that were identified were that the knowledge must be justified; true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge. Something is true; someone believes that something happened; and someone is justified in believing in something.
Gettier came up with two counterexamples to argue that there can exist a case that beliefs can both be true and justified, but that do not show to have any true cases of knowledge. In his first case his counterexample he used the example of a man named smith has applied for a job, but, it is claimed, has a justified belief that Jones will get the job. A justified belief that Jones has ten coins in his pocket was in it too. Smith then with this information, came to that conclusion that the man that had the ten coins in his pocket would be the one that would be rewarded with the job. To find out though, Jones did not get the job. On the contrary, Smith got it. Smith, probably not knowing it would happen, also obtained ten coins in his pockets at the time. The belief that the man who obtained...