Pre-amble: Recovering RC (old-school German version no less).
Took 30+ years to finally break free and become an atheist,
through negative religious experiences, gradual self-reflection
and rationalization (I suspect my degree in Math/Computer
Science also had something to add).  Now to my paradox. My (and
Dawkins', and probably every other atheist's) quest for truth
(resulting in atheism) has been fundamentally based on
rationalization. But I cannot mentally get past my own following
(ironically rational) argument:  - Rationalism is based on
logic. - Logic is ultimately based on set theory (like most
math). - Sets are groupings of like entities. - No two real
entities exist alike (due to Heisenberg uncertainty, or other
quantum-level concept). - So sets cannot exist (except for
abstractions). - So logic has no foundation. - So rationalism is
impossible.  Seriously, this personal paradox is vexing me -
someone please help with where my rationale is breaking down!
Tags: heisenberg, impossible, logic, math, q