Paradox: Belief vs Concept

Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)

The Argument

This will, hopefully, be the final time I touch upon the concept problem. This post is a response to an extremely strong argument made against the concept problem during the introduction, by Alex Harman; it is an argument that I have been trying to answer for the past few weeks to no avail. This is a shortened version of his argument:

The concept problem suggests that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, essentially non-existent. However, consider this situation:

I believe that the colour I am looking at is blue. Even if at a later time I find that the colour I was looking at was indeed not blue, this does not dispute nor change the fact that I believed that the colour was blue. Surely through this logic, the fact that I believed the colour was blue must be the truth, and therefore truth, and concepts, must exist.

As you can see, this argument essentially uses belief to destroy the idea that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, non-existent. This, however, is not the case. From here on it may get a little complicated, so try and follow carefully.

Revision

First, let us revise the concept problem. The concept problem states (I quote):
'the very reason that (Right and Wrong) are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective'
As you can see, the concept problem does not affect all concepts. In fact, the only concepts that are subject to the rule are opposing, black-and-white concepts, the integral ones that we use in everday society. Now, the source of the problem in the statement that we are trying to overcome is that the problem argument's very basis is the fact that one 'believes the colour is blue'. This is not an argument of whether the colour is blue or not, but instead, an argument that i believed in it, therefore the fact I believed must be true. Subsequently, can belief be considered a black-and-white concept?

Wait a minute...

For those of you who may have realised, belief CAN, in fact, be considered a black-and-white concept. This is due to the fact that there is belief, when one believes in something, and disbelief, when one does not belief in something. So, should this argument not apply? The case is not whether this argument should not apply, but that the argument undoubtedly can not apply. Let me explain.

The Logic Paradox

What are concepts? Concepts are ideas, are they not? That said, concepts are not just ideas. Concepts are ideas that are created by belief. Logically, they are ideas created by the mind, and ideas that we, ourselves, have belief in. And that is the key. We have to have belief in these black-and-white concepts in order for them to exist, it is mandatory for concepts themselves. The argument stated is, as stated before, an argument of whether the belief is the truth or not. For the concept problem to work, however, this belief within the argument has to be non-existent and indifferent. This, in turn, affects the original belief from which all concepts, including the very concept problem itself, originates (This is where it gets difficult...). Therefore, if the argument indeed made sense, it would defy the original belief, therefore destroying the very concept problem that created the argument in the first place (confusing, I know).

Conclusion and the Simple Version

In laymans terms, the argument created by belief is subsequently destroyed by the resulting absence of belief. This, in turn creates a paradox. By applying belief to the formula and disproving it, you destroy the formula (the Concept Problem) itself, therefore rendering the original argument non-existent. In short, it makes no sense.
To me, this is extraordinary. Not only have I found a logical paradox with the help of Alex, but this has also been able to show that my entire argument of the concept problem, starts from, relies on the prescence and existence of belief.

I would like to thank Alex for sending it such a fantastic argument, it has been a real tricky one to dissect and overcome. If any of you believe you have a response or criticism that you can make to my blogs please post (or join and post if you haven't already) your responses in the respective comments section. After all, this blog is designed for intelligent arguments such as these, and trust me, it is a lot of fun once you get into it.