![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Let’s have a small thought experiment. Assume, arguendo, that God is something larger than everything else: something so immense and pervasive that nothing can compare.
Now create two lists. In one list, put everything that exists. In another, put everything that doesn’t.
Where ought God be placed? If placed in the “not exist” list, then we assert “nothing larger than everything else exists” — which is so obviously silly that it requires no further refutation. If placed in the “exist” list, then we have just created something big enough to contain God: God belongs to the set of things that exist. This conflicts with our given, which is that God cannot be contained.
This is why I tend to opt out of discussions about the existence or nonexistence of God. Both sides’ arguments depend on a hidden assumption, which is that the language we use is sufficient to the task of exploring questions about God — particularly, the existence, nonexistence, provability, nonprovability thereof, and so on.
I cannot make this hidden assumption: and that is why I am an ignostic.
I take no public position on the existence or nonexistence of God. Any words I could use would be a priori insufficient to the task. If God is the case, I hope He will understand my reluctance and smile upon me: and if God is not the case, well — then I’m not harming myself being skeptical even about religious skepticism.