Is there a refutation for the Munchhausen Trilemma?

[Ben_Sinner]

Is there anyway to refute it and prove there is absolute truth?

I’ve seen an example of this Trilemma before. For example:

*Bob: Its going to rain today.
Jim: Why do you think that?
Bob: Because there are rain clouds in the sky.
Jim: "Why do you think that?
Bob: “Just look at them. Can’t you seem them? They’re all heavy and dark like.”
Jim: "Why do you think that?
Bob: Because I see them.

Jim: You already appealed to your visual apparatus, you used circular reasoning.

Bob*: “Why do I think the clouds are heavy and dark like?”
Jim: “Yes, why?”
Bob: Because I just do.

Jim: You are assuming your reason is true, that doesn’t actually show that it is.*

 

[blase6]

Bob needs to respond by saying, “I think that it will most likely rain because my senses indicate that it will be so, according to my rational judgement.”

 

[Ben_Sinner]

And the theory states this:

“An attempt to justify something leads to either infinite regress, circularity, or dogmatism.”

Isn’t that statement an absolute truth?

 

[Tomdstone]

And the theory states this:

“An attempt to justify something leads to either infinite regress, circularity, or dogmatism.”

Isn’t that statement an absolute truth?

You can prove that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal in Euclidean geometry using only the axioms of Euclidean geometry.

 

[Latias]

And the theory states this:

“An attempt to justify something leads to either infinite regress, circularity, or dogmatism.”

Isn’t that statement an absolute truth?

Look up truth deflationism.