If I am asked, "What besides the true belief do you need in order to have knowledge?" I would answer that in order to have knowledge I need good reasons besides true belief. Those reasons should be able to provide enough evidences that would put the belief beyond any reasonable doubt and should be aligned to the capacity of my senses. Thus, in my idea, I can have knowledge only when it becomes a 'properly grounded, true belief'. When a question like "When do you have good reason for doubting that a proposition is true?" arises, I would answer that I could have good reason for doubting a proposition to be true, when I would have justifiable evidence challenging that proposition, to the extent of providing good reasons for not believing the proposition in question. In my view, a proposition should not have any equally potent counterpoints (i.e., credible and aligned to my senses) towards establishing its truth. And if some asks me, "Is faith a source of knowledge?" My answer will be, "No, Faith is not a source of knowledge to me. It is a choice of belief without any reasoning supported by evidence. It cannot be the source of knowledge, because I cannot make something true by believing it to be true. At best, Faith is something that I can induce onto someone under the parameters of human behavior to get a desired result – which, again, is dependent on belief backed by reasoning enriched with evidence." Ends