Knowledge Theory

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Receive Paper In 3 Hours

Knowledge is resilient if sustained feedback will endure. Information is questioned as it is exposed to both constructive and negative scrutiny by conflict and consensus. Immediately, any area of knowledge overcomes opposition and reaches consensus, qualifies it as knowledge, otherwise it ceases to be knowledge. In nearly all, if not all fields of science, they embrace the notion that knowledge starts with fascination, wonder, pursuit, and excitement to know about questioning. Questioning is explicitly extracted from non-compliance with current knowledge.If knowledge is not exposed to disagreement, there will be no consensus and thus, people may live in ignorance born from “gut feel.” Relying on unquestioned or disagreed information cannot be regarded as wisdom because wisdom comes from knowing and proving the information gotten from any source and reaching consensus or general agreement (Julkunen, & Karvinen-Niinikoski, 2014). In areas of knowledge such as social sciences like philosophy and areas of religious knowledge, disagreement and consensus help in determining that which is knowledge from that which is not. Therefore, robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement.

Philosophy agrees on the existence of a supernatural being that makes all things be. This is after quite a long time of philosopher’s study to question how and why things are the way they are. There are, however, a being that made other beings to exist. When we consider how efficient the earth moves, the purpose of human being as well as the period which a person stays under the sun, there is, however, the reason for the agreement that there is truly a supernatural being. Tomas Aquinas asserts the existence of this being in his argument with the beings. He gives a foundation of four causes which can assert that there is a supernatural being, the cause of all causes. When a human being evaluates the perfection of the universe, he gets that there is always a better comparison for this perfection. When one thinks of the motion that beings make, there is always a conclusion that, there is the existence of a mover who makes things move. Robust knowledge will call for disagreement of this fact to either prove otherwise or ascertain such a claim of knowledge in the social science area of knowledge.

KQ Questions in philosophy and religious studies as areas of knowledge

A question comes; where did the causer of beings come from? Can we prove his existence through physical means? And lastly, would it be okay to say that no being sustains the universe but it exists through efficient sustainability?


Robust knowledge allows consensus of ideas to qualify them as knowledge. For the case of the existence of God, a consensus can be reached through the following claims:

It is certain that for one thing to exist, there must be the principle causer to make it exist. The world could not have existed unless another being that is more superior that everything that exists, existed. This means that the world has a beginning but the causer of the world or the creator of the universe existed like forever. In this sense, it also becomes a fugitive argument of where the cause of all things came from, it is clear that the efficient causer existed eternally and that’s why he was able to create other beings. Without his eternal existence, how could he have been there to create and sustain all that he created? Certainly, it would not make any sense. On the other hand, we can also deduct another reasoning to decipher this knowledge by asking ourselves some simple questions like, between the egg and the hen, which one is older. That gives us a sure answer that a hen is older than the egg because the hen lays the egg. Just the same way, the universe won’t exist without its core ever existence being called God.

For the question of physical proof, his existence can be got from the argument of the physical things or physical properties that the beings he created seem to possess. First, let’s consider his existence as a supernatural being. This means that if he exists as a supernatural being, he cannot be seen with the eyes but the actions of the spirit are seen through the creation. For instance, when you consider the wind as it blows, it becomes hard for it to be seen but its actions of pollination, bending trees, and other actions show that certainly, the works of God are seen though we can hardly see him with the eyes. In counter to the question, robust knowledge, therefore, gives a room for arguing a claim out until a consensus is met to qualify it to knowledge.

On the quest of whether there is a being who sustains the universe, it is certainly the fact that the universe does not sustain itself but God, the supernatural being upholds it and sustains it. There is no doubt that, when a being makes a creation, whether it lives by itself or he makes its every move, cannot refute the fact that the creator is the sustainer. This means that he who created the universe sustains it all through as there is nothing that lives by chance but all lives as purposed and planned by he who made them exist.


However, robust knowledge asserts that there have to be counterclaims in disagreement with the arguments to the point of consensus. Disagreement for the robust knowledge helps in keeping away from false claims which cannot be verified. For instance, in philosophical claims on the existence of God has been countered by the religious knowledge systems as follows:

Religions are different but all of them holds that there is God who is Alpha and Omega, especially Christians. This is an indication that6 above all, there is God who existed from Genesis or from the start, and who makes all as he purposes. This area of knowledge in Christianity also bears the belief that, he existed from the beginning and there is the consensus about. However, how does one believe if you have not seen? This area of knowledge then explains that to believe is to have hope of things not seen

To disagree a little bit, if he cannot be proven to exist physically, he actually doesn’t exist. How can we define existence? One is born with no knowledge of the being until he learns that there is a supernatural being. Would a matter of believing that there might be god be of cultural stands? On the other hand, because he does not exist physically, people have developed very many perceptions of who God might be. The question is, who has the full knowledge of who he is? On this stand, there is no god.

On the other counterclaim, there is no being that sustains the universe because if it were so, there could be more life in abundance, no existence of evil and paradise would be created just here beneath the sky. It means that there is efficient sustainability that makes the world to be the way it is, that makes things die as others start existing. This can lead to the conclusion that God really does not exist.


In conclusion, Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement. There have to claim that support as well as counterarguments. The philosophical and religious stance on the issue of the existence of God, therefore, comes to criticism where there are claims that God exists while some others show that he does not. However, the claims for the existence of God proves the robust knowledge that he exists as it is able to address all the concerns that the counterclaims bring about. All in all, without examining both sides of the consensus and disagreement6, we can hardly settle to assume that we have acquired knowledge because unless we carry on the claims through the disagreements and consensus, we can be considered as ignorant as per the philosophical ideologies. The quest for knowledge brings all light that an argument bears to stand as knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is robust if it can survive sustained criticism tested by disagreement and proven to be knowledge if it achieves consensus (Szigeti, Carvalho, Morley& Hush, 2014). Thus, robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement.


Julkunen, I., & Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2014). Socially robust knowledge processes of local and global interest in social work. Social Change and Social Work. The Changing Societal Conditions of Social Work in Time and Place, 101-120.

Szigeti, S. S., Carvalho, A. R., Morley, J. G., & Hush, M. R. (2014). Ignorance is bliss: General and robust cancellation of decoherence via no-knowledge quantum feedback. Physical review letters, 113(2), 020407.

This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.

Let a professional writer get your back and save some time!

Hire Writer

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Get Price