The trilemma is just a formalism which summarizes 3 logical conclusions that appear to apply to all certain knowledge. As long as it is self-consistent there is no paradox. How do we formulate a purely logical analysis without consistency? The fact that the trilemma itself is not justifiable with certainty according to itself, does not preclude having vast data and experience that justify it strongly. The same is the case with questions of God's existence or lack thereof, and the question elicited by the OP. I suppose you could say that it begs the question, but that seems to be an illusion due to the strength and structure of the evidence.
Logic is just a tool, if you put crap in you get crap out. If your premise is inconsistent then so will be your “purely logical analysis”. The first error in the premise is that it applies to certain knowledge as the conclusion is that there can be no certain knowledge, it can only apply to uncertain knowledge. Of course you do not need the trilemma to tell you that. The only need for justification or validation comes specifically from a lack of knowledge. With infinite knowledge no justification would be required as validity would be knowingly established. So given the requirement of a specific lack of knowledge for the applicability of justification and validity they specifically can not come from an infinite regression as the need is based on finite knowledge. The first conclusion is simply a straw man to claim that infinite regression is not possible in a situation that specifically requires finite knowledge.
Without infinite knowledge all justifications resulting from finite knowledge must terminate somewhere even if it is at the very end or beginning of that finite knowledge. An arbitrary termination is just that arbitrary and leaves the justification open and more easily questionable. The termination of a justification at some circular reference, namely a tautology provides a more justifiable termination (a logical cul-de-sac), when terminated succinctly the circular reference adds validity to the justification as opposed to sacrificing it.
The very aspects that the trilemma addresses, justification and validation only derive from and are only applicable to limited knowledge. To then claim that it demonstrates all knowledge, justifications and validations must be limited is in fact “begging the question”
As a general rule, the more consistent something is with reality, the more certain it is. The trilemma shows us how to get closer to certainty. If you find a better alternative way to do so, it would not necessarily invalidate the trilemma, but to claim that the trilemma is false would suddenly break our understanding of what it means to come closer to the truth, and which would consequently invalidate the way in which you came to conclude that God does not exist, in which case your conclusion that God does not exist would not be valid.
What? Remember “The trilemma is just a formalism which summarizes 3 logical conclusions that appear to apply to all certain knowledge” where does it describe a process that “shows us how to get closer to certainty”. Conclusions are not a process but the end of a process.
The only way to validate that process by which you determined that God does not exist, would be by resuming that process, which is equivalent to "always being open to new evidence".
In other words, if you are not open to new evidence, that attitude contradicts the very way in which you came to earlier conclusions, and it opens up the door for justifying the dogmatic processes of those who contradict your original assertions, namely those of theists.
Again, about limited knowledge, it is not just knowledge that can be limited. The situation or system can also be limited making the knowledge of that situation or system complete although not infinite. Again with the, “not open to new evidence” straw man, one can always be open to new evidence but some limited systems or situations are not. So the issue is not about being open to new evidence but what the new evidence can be evidence of. Let’s try this again 13 or even 1 are not obtainable on a roll of a standard pair of dice, yes that is a circular reference and a tautology. If we apply that to any given roll of any given pair of dice and get as a result anything but a whole number between 2 and 12 (inclusive) then we can conclude that the dice were not standard or the result was misinterpreted. As it tells us something about the dice and the outcome, the application of our certain knowledge of the possible outcomes on a standard pair of dice is not a tautology, as it is also only valid for results that are not a whole number between 2 and 12 (inclusive). In this limited situation of a limited system our certain yet finite knowledge provides the justification for and the validity of the conclusions about the dice or the outcome of the rolls (not standard or misinterpreted). You can certainly be open to new evidence of a 14, 12.5, p or “Fred” as the outcome of the roll but they only apply to the questions of if the dice are standard and if the roll was accurately interpreted. New evidence sure, but new evidence of what, the conclusions of the “begging the question” trilemma says that we can never be sure, when we certainly can by applying our limited knowledge to equally limited situations and systems.
Oh and by the way, there is no need to presume what I conclude or how I concluded it. I am more then happy to tell you or if it is too personal or none of you business, I’m more then happy to tell you that as well. As far as the existence or God is concerned, for me it is simply not an issue, whether God exists or not is simply of no personal concern to me. I have do not change my actions because of some human threat in my life, I am certainly not going to prepare to do so because of some eternal threat upon my death.
As far as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy go, they are simply lies told be adults to children. Might some trans-dimensional rift or genetic engineering make Santa Claus and the tooth fairy possible at some future time, who can say. What I can say is that all the events that I was told were due to the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, were just my parents or relatives and no future or present possibility of an actual Santa Claus or tooth fairy can change that.
Question: When does a lie always have at least some probability of being true.
Answer: When it is told by a philosophical skeptic to a philosophical skeptic.
