You seem to have missed that it needs an explanation even when you read 2 possible ones.
I haven't missed anything,
you haven't read it.
Again you need to understand before you accuse others of being wrong, based on inadequate misunderstanding.
You've done it to me and others several times - T-cells, all sorts of maths.
The "paradox" is only a thought experiment, it isn't real,
it's hypothetical.
The ancient monk didn't have a clue about much at all.
Read it: darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe.
"If the Universe has infinitely many stars, then presumably it should be."
You
have read enough to know that isn't true on two counts, you've quoted it from wikipedia as though you were telling us something, - but obviously misunderstood what you cut and pasted.
Current theory pretty clearly says
1) The Universe doesn't have infinite stars, and
2) even if it did, we wouldn't see them because their light wouldn't all reach us.
So it's junk.
Tiresome.
Kludge is too strong a word really 
My view actually is that he is 100% correct and astrophysics and observation are the problem.
