The gospel according to Fyodor Dostoyevsky:
“As for me, I’ve long resolved not to think whether man created God or God man.”
How much passion and zeal ought one to expend towards any degree of apathy? If one is indifferent on such matters, then does it really matter or make a difference to do or say anything at all? Is this not a paradox of thought and practice?
How much must be known before being convinced of agnosticism? If one can not know something about certain matters, then how can it be known that it can not be known? In coming to know that you can not know is a matter of knowledge that requires knowing. Again, is this not a paradox of thought and practice?
Both of these descriptions might sound nice but make little sense regarding these matters.
Is it possible to convince another of apathy or even agnosticism? There are inherent difficulties in efforts to argue others towards such realities. The former doesn’t care and the latter doesn’t know.
Inconsistent.
It seems this statement is full of sentiment and devoid of sense. How does one write about something that one has “long resolved not to think” about? This statement is either a thoughtless one or inconsistent one. Either way, it makes this statement irrelevant for the discussion of God’s existence or non-existence.
Irrelevant.
This is a self-declared admission of inconsistencies and irrelevancies.
Dominated by sentiment.
Deficient in sense.
Where to begin and why continue?
I don’t know?!
I don’t care?!
