The Münchhausen Trilemma

You say that you are the King of Babylonia and I ask you “Why do you think so?” Generally then there are three ways to justify that you are, namely:
A) You say that your father was also King of Babylonia, and his father was, and so on, back into the past as far as man can remember.
B) Or you say: “I am the King of Babylonia according to the constitution. I have written the constitution in order to determine who will be the King of Babylonia. The constitution is the legal foundation of the Kingdom of Babylonia. So I am the legal King of Babylonia.”
C) Or you say that you are the King of Babylonia by the grace of God.
Although each of these three justifications that you are the King of Babylonia seems sound, there is a problem with each of them. Answer A has often been applied in history, and it is still valid for several monarchs in the present world, like the Emperor of Japan or (more or less) the King of the Netherlands or the Queen of England. However, maybe, your father was the legal king of Babylonia, and his father was, etc., but at a certain point we must stop going back in history because we don’t know the facts. And maybe there was once a king in the line who didn’t get his power in a legal way. Actually, what we have here is an infinite regression that we must break off at an arbitrary point because of the mystery of history.
On the face of it, Answer B seems sound. For if there is a constitution that appoints you as the King of Babylonia, it must be legal that you are the king. However, it is a circular reasoning, for you, the King of Babylonia, made the constitution and the constitution made you King of Babylonia. The King depends on the constitution and the constitution depends on the King.
Maybe then answer C is a correct justification that you are the King of Babylonia? Perhaps it is, but it’s merely a supposition that it is true, and if I am not religious, I don’t need to accept it. Answer C is a justification based on an axiom.
The trilemma that I have tried to explain here with the help of a fictitious King of Babylonia has first been formulated by a certain Agrippa, a sceptic philosopher who probably lived towards the end of the 1st century. However, nowadays it has especially become known by the work of the German philosopher Hans Albert (1921-) who called it the Münchhausen Trilemma, after the famous story about Baron von Münchhausen who pulled himself out of a mire by his own hair. (see here). According to Albert, in the end no knowledge, no truth or no statement can be established with certainty. For whatever argument or proof we bring forward in order to support a statement, it is always possible to ask further questions that cast doubt on each new argument or proof. In the end, we come into the situation that we have to choose between:
1) An infinite regression, which appears because of the necessity to go ever further back, but is not practically feasible and does not, therefore, provide a certain foundation.
2) A logical circle in the deduction, which is caused by the fact that one, in the need to found, falls back on statements which had already appeared before as requiring a foundation, and which circle does not lead to any certain foundation either.
3) A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason. (see Source; translation taken from the Wikipedia) We can call this point also dogmatism.
If the trilemma is true, and I think it is, the consequence is that no statement, no piece of knowledge, no assumed truth can be definitively substantiated. In this sense, there is no truth. In the end, we know nothing for certain. The only thing we can do then, so Albert, is to be critical and to make each statement, piece of knowledge, or supposed truth open to criticism, anyhow, for everything can be different from what is seems. Although I fully endorse this idea, there is a problem. For if the Münchhausen trilemma is right, no choice can be justified. Each choice is as good or as bad as any other choice. Then we are in the situation of Buridan’s ass, who now must choose not between two haystacks but between three haystacks. (see here). In such a situation living would be impossible. Then there is only one solution: just do what you think that is reasonable. Act! For action is the foundation of life. 

Source
- Hans Albert, Traktat über kritische Vernunft. Tübingen: J.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1968 (a description of the Münchhausen Trilemma is on p. 13.