First, Lets analyze you original argument before your counterargument. Your original argument is summarized in one line: "I am an atheist because I see paradoxes". I say this is among the most amusing reasons to be an atheist. Your paradoxes arise from limitation of language, limitation of the reasoning ability through binary logic. Further, let me show you an example of an infinite regression: x = 1 + (1/x) This is an infinite regression. If "x" is God, (1+1/x) is Who created God, and you can replace the 1/x as (1/(1+1/x))... infinitely. This represents your paradox rather directly. But what happens to this regression? It Converges. You see, infinite regressions DO CONVERGE to a value. They do not have to remain in endless loops. You put them in endless loops by treating "parent process" and "child process" the same. They are not the same. Therefore, even in your own binary logic space, you cannot use infinite regression as a disproof of anything. Your own paradox in your own binary logic space did not disprove God. Now lets see about your counterargument: You are an atheist. And then you generously come down from high horse and "accept agnosticism" as a possibility. If you are convinced about your conclusions from your paradoxes you will not accept agnoticism as a minor solution. That should have raised an alert about the paradox and the method of solving it. As pointed out earlier, there is no mistatement about your position. You use paradoxes as a platform to embrace Atheism. And no, I am not any authority of "superior logic". Ever so many creditworthy mathematicians have evolved different systems of superior logic. Even as far back as 2000 years ago Indian scientists have evolved those Superior Logic Systems. Here are some examples: (quoted from a recent research paper that appeared in journal Current Science): (Specifically note the sentence that appears before the Bhadrabahu paragraph) ---- Saptbhangi syad evolved with the evolution of the Jain thought in India. As its cornerstone, the conservation principle (tangible reality is the net of inputs and outputs) is attributed to Rishabhnath (ca. 3000 BC). By the time of Parshvanath (ca. 850 BC), the above conservation principle was invoked to draw inference from real world analogies. As evolved later, the key assumptions for the relations in Table 1 are: (1) The world in front of the eyes (pratyakch) is what it is, it does what it does, it is neither created from nothing nor does it disappear into nothing. (2) A conscious (chetana) organism extracts information about phenomenal world from sense inputs. Such images are interpreted as perceptions (itthi) by the internal world behind the eyes (parokch, mind). (3) Awareness of such images is cognized in relation to other inputs and beliefs. Criteria-based descriptions (anugam) of the cognized parts provide information and evidence to represent, reason, interpret, assert, and evaluate consequences. The external world is real and its content is conserved as net balance of inputs and outputs. Its complexity may be daunting and its behavior unpredictable, but it is never contradictory. (4) As spectator, actor and decision maker, an organism interprets perceived parts of inputs to make choices that may be life altering and make one happy, anxious or regretful. (5) Organisms bear consequences of individual and collective actions. Such interdependence calls for reasoned conversation to resolve conflict to arrive at a rational basis for coexistence, including a social contract for live, let live, and thrive. Mahaveer (599-527 BC) revitalized the Nay methods with the belief that all organisms interpret their experience to address their concerns. Humans distinguish themselves with their ability to reason and deliberate, and the gulf between belief and words is further minimized by practice. If common sense aligns inputs with perceptions, it takes reasoned uncommon sense to align perceptions with the independent reality of phenomenal world. Scrutiny of the content and context of propositions with identified assumptions encourages an open-ended search for certainty that proves and improves as some uncertainty goes away with each day. In response to a query from his discussion leader Indrabhuti Gautam (607-515 BC), Mahaveer emphasized that a belief is inferred not only from the content and context of what one knows and how it came to be known, but to realize its full potential it is also necessary to know what one does not know, what else is needed, and what may falsify and contradict it. Saptbhangi Syad Nay is elaborated in several written works that go back 2000 years. It evolved from the core assumption that assertions supported by independent evidence not only affirm but also identify areas of doubt and contradictions. The role of evidence in support of reasoning (up-nay) and decision (nir-nay) is elaborated in Gautam’s Nyay Sutr compiled by Akchapad (ca. 100 AD). This text does not mention the word Nyay. Apparently it come in the title through the Nyay Bhasya commentary by Vatsyayan (ca. 400 AD) where the word Nyay appears in the text only once in an insignificant context. Apparently by 500 AD evidence-based Nay reasoning had morphed under the influence of Naiyayik beliefs into Nyay Darshan based on the evidence from scriptures. Current usage of Nyay connotes evidence based judgment with an authority of rule. Soon the limitations of the scriptural evidence and of the logic of true and false (tark) were widely recognized. Bhadrabahu I (350 BC) emphasized the four inferred logic states as it is (T), it is not (F), it is both (D), or it is neither (X). Umaswami (ca 200 AD) noted that the authority of an affirmed assertion for reasoning is in the evidence. Evidence affirms a certain aspect of the object as a particular or as a class, or its functional state or current state, or as addressed in the past. An inference is valid within bounds of all of its assertions affirmed in real time. Samantbhadra (ca. 300 AD) emphasized that evidence-based validity is necessarily incomplete unless the remaining doubt, if any, is also resolved. Siddhsen Divakar (ca. 500 AD) reiterated that reasoning is not possible unless assertions about content and context relations of the object are affirmed by evidence. Buddhists surmised nothingness (shoonyata) as the ultimate reality against which perceptions are transitory constructs of mind. It was rebutted by Akalank (670 AD) in a decisive debate in Kanchi: shoonyata as a state without a basis in the content and context of an object is also without value for reasoning. Hemchandra (ca. 1050 AD) emphasized: Unless supported by evidence an assertion is no different than nothing. Note that shoonyata is a blank platform to represent and interpret sense experience. Gunratn (ca. 1435 AD) reiterated reliance on criteria-based assertions affirmed by independent evidence as antidote against omniscience of ad hoc. More recently Hiraiynna 8 noted that the four syad states, is (asti) and is not (nasti) with both is or is not and neither is nor is not, challenged the dichotomy of true or false in the faith-based Vedic absolutism. It identified contradiction of the undifferentiated Upnishadic reality of it is so, and also it is not so (eti eti, neti neti). Such interpretation of explicit assertions about an object of reasoning, inferred as the syad states are not red herrings of relativism, skepticism or deviant logic, nor the metaphysics of four-cornered truth ------ As you can see, the primitive system of binary logic is being challenged by eminent researchers all over the world. You must catch up, instead of behaving like Church that refuted Galileo and brushing aside a serious assistance that tells you there are better systems of understanding the world. I am glad to note that there are many who see that better logic systems are available. I want you to join us. You don't have to stop being an atheist. The better logic systems do not lead to one solution or another. But they resolve paradoxes. So, you are free to choose your path with a stronger reasoning of your own, not some silly paradoxes that are worse than a barber shop story. I have never claimed I am the authority in other logic systems. Your perception is misplaced. Superior Logic systems EXIST, studied well before I did, research papers published by many scientists. I am aware of them. Thats all. I shared my awareness with everyone. I recommend you read Poincare's theorems on probabilities. It shows that all probable states occur, which lead to parallel universes being simultaneously created. Lets take tossing a coin: Head or Tail. According to Poincare, both of them occur leading to two parallel universes. Simply because we see Head it doesn't mean the other one didn't occur. We are simply not part of that Universe where Tail occurred. The Andromeda Galaxy doesn't care about human condition. We should sack all Astronomers? Hubble Telescope? Space missions? You see, not everything is about wealth. Human knowledge came from curiosity, not from search of wealth. I will respect your choice if you decide not to seek better systems of logic.
