Here I propose an Epistemology that I argue is entirely coherent and suffers none of the normal epistemic problems for Justification, such as the lottery problem, the new evil demon problem etc. I will argue that this epistemology is entirely consistent with reality and that no examples to the contrary can fault it.

I challenge the theists (or atheists) to either 1) refute my epistemology OR 2) come up with an epistemology that is coherent, consistent and demonstrates that your beliefs are justified.

My epistemology (2 stage Evidentialist Reliabilism):

1. Acquisition of belief (Reliabilism)

A belief that P is not unreasonableIF AND ONLY IF it is a belief that is arrived at by reliable mechanism AND ONLY UNTIL that belief is examined.

2. Examination (Evidentialism)

A belief that P is Justified IF AND ONLY IF it is a belief that is supported by evidence. ELSE the belief that P is unreasonable.

For example, I am not unreasonable (but not justified) in believing that my old flatmate is across the street in a crowd if I perceive him with my senses (visual identification is reliable) ONLY UNTIL I examine my belief. Upon examination (for example security camera footage) I am either Justified in my belief because it is supported by evidence OR I am unreasonable if my belief that P is unsupported.