According to some Western thinkers, considering earthy and compelled human alongside with the heavenly and compelling God can result in nothing but human’s alienation and transduction of alien personality in his mind and spirit. Basically, man’s realization of alienation and its type has a close relationship with the way of consideration of human and his nature. Of course type of human regard to God and kind of God that a religion defines, is another altered factor that into the side transaction, human and God has a decisive role. In Islamic teaching human nature and religion are defined as two truth corresponding together and in other words unique truth manifest into the sight of genesis and legislation as human nature and religion. In Islamic philosophy especially Hekmah Al-Motaaliyeh (transcendental wisdom) human’s relationship with God and also universe with God, is the same as relation and dependency. In heavenly instructions, human nature is divine whiff. Therefore, it should have total congruity with divine nature. Since self- forgetfulness is the direct result of God- forgetfulness, God-Belief and self- detection have strong relation with each other, too. Moreover, in the mystical instructions of the Muslims mystics, God is a truth that is closer to man than himself. And therefore, the more he is such proximity, attraction and rapture to God, not only the man becomes self- alien, but also he will recognize himself better than before and will approach to his own origin.

In the twentieth century, the idea of experiencing religious philosophy of religion became increasingly important in the eyes of many philosophers and religious thinkers. The formulation and presentation of religious experience as a source of Justification and religious concepts were introduced, and the argument for the existence of God and His attributes were derived. Explaining the second half of this century, the epistemological argument with versions came along and tried some philosophers of religion rationality of religious Belief based on experience to defend. One of these philosophers is William Alston. He has attempted to articulate a theory of religious experience through accreditation of experiential knowledge of God, which he calls the mystical experience, knowledge base to justify and reasoning faith in God to provide. He explained his theory, first proposed the theory of appearance. Through perceptual experience and understanding of religious and spiritual perceptions, and then by relegating religion to justify the means "doxastic practice" and the epistemic Justification of religious Belief based on mystical perceptual practice, he tries to show that religious experience religious faith is a source of Justification.

In the present article, the writer has tried to study the analysis and epistemological Justification of religious Belief from the viewpoint of John Hick, the contemporary philosopher of religion.Concerning the analysis of religious Belief, he firstly propounds the presuppositions and historical contexts of Hick's view in brief and the explains in detail that, according to him, religious Belief enjoys an interpretive nature.Moreover, concerning the epistemological Justification of religious Belief, the writer examines Hick's view of the similarity between religious and sense experiences with respect to the Justification of the Beliefs that are based on them.

The chief purpose of this paper is to argue for the possibility of immediate knowledge of God through knowledge by presence from Sadra’s philosophical perspective. This sort of immediate and direct knowledge can provide Justification for Belief in God. I shall show how knowledge by presence works in this regard, and how important the role of knowledge by presence is in a religious epistemology. Sadra as a famous Shi‘ite philosopher in his new philosophical school, al-Hikmat almuta‘aliyah, on the basis of Shi’ite theology, has attempted to employ knowledge by presence to argue for the Justification of immediate knowledge of God. I also shall deal with the criticisms of the immediate knowledge of God, that Sadra contended epistemically.

Justification of believe in God had been one of the most challenging problem throughout history of philosophy. The problem is "is believe in God epistemically justified? " Gutting's theory in Justification of theism is combined of two parts. He critiques Witgenstainian's view firstly, and then considers Aquinas', Plantinga's, and some other views as incorrect views on theism. Gutting says that Witgenstainians and Tomistic approaches cannot draw a religious language exactly. He also considers Plantinga's view as an incorrect view, because it is completely possible that the viewpoint of believers in believing to the existence of God to be evaluate epistemologically as true as the non-believers' view to the nonexistence of God. Discussing his own view, Gutting justifies believing in God regarding the religious experience. This article explains Gutting's critique of Witgenstainian's, Tomistic and Planting's approach on Justification of believe in God.

This article aims to analyse the meaning of prayer in Abrahamic religions. To do this, it applies the Wittgenstein's Language Games' theory. At first it explains these language games as forms of life. Secondly it describes that form of life which is a model for prayer. At the end it shows how the prayer can be away for a better understanding of God in Abrahamic religions.      

There have been many epistemological challenges about the Justification of Belief in God over the past three centuries, so that some, such as Plantinga, have merely proposed warranted Belief rather than justifying an argument in this regard and showed the Belief in God's existence as a basic Belief. But millions of people, regardless of these challenges, believe in God's existence as justified for themselves without being a fideist. Where does this Justification come from? Can their Justification be explained epistemologically? In this paper, while explaining the new currents of social epistemology and "testimony", the importance of epistemology based on trusted hearings is shown and then it is argued that our trusted hearings about the existence of God and his attributes and those of the prophets, and that it is based on God's confession and his explanation of himself, can be the best Justification for our Beliefs. Finally, the question of how God's testimony to his existence and attributes, which has come to us through the prophets, can be one of the best epistemological Justifications for believing in the existence and attributes of God? And what advantages can this type of religious epistemology have over evidevtialism or various forms of arguing for the existence of God and his attributes?

The present paper depicts Moser’ s view on the Justification of the Belief in God. By debunking the efficiency of mere theoretical reason in proving the existence of God, introducing God as the source of Justification, and using a moral perspective, he proposes a kind of voluntary knowledge. He assumes the right path to acquire true knowledge of God to be a direct and purposeful evidence, which is found in accordance to divine attributes. For their own redemption, before the interference of thought and feelings, God wills the voluntary moral revolution of human beings from selfishness to selfless absolute love. In this respect, Moser puts forth a virtue-based evidentialism, on the basis of which people can accept God’ s invitation to friendship with absolute love and therefore experience God’ s blessing in their motivational core. This experience indicates God’ s self-manifestation and offers direct evidence for his existence, which causes the subject, by gaining moral attributes and receiving God’ s absolute love and sharing it with others, to become a personified evidence of God himself. Moreover, according to the inference to the best explanation, Moser justifies the Belief in God by this empirical and non-propositional evidence. As a result, Moser’ s existential and moral account, despite being criticized for its being subjective and relative, and the unreliability of religious experiences, has revived a number of forgotten theological concepts.

There are various descriptions and interpretations of the innate Belief of God. One of these descriptions is the interpretation of the innate Belief as a cordial knowledge which is neither a kind of immediate knowledge or intuitive knowledge nor a kind of acquired knowledge; it is rather a kind of knowledge entrusted by God in human's heart and soul and is his creation. This account has been presented by the followers of the separation approach and has various defects in terms of its basis, content and method such as: suspension of reason in finding the acquired knowledge of God, denial of the immediate knowledge of God and similar problems; and finally it cannot present a criterion for the Justification of the innate Belief of God. I have tried to present the correct idea in this regard using a descriptive-analytic method in order to have a critical investigation and explanation of this theory. The innate Belief of God, according to the correct account, is a cordial Belief and a kind of immediate knowledge. Since immediate knowledge is a kind of knowledge which is identical with outside reality, it has no mistakes and is self-justifiable in its Justification and proof.