UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 20 to Meditation 832
Operational definitions required

by: DEI

To add to this exchange of views (or any other,) please use the Contact form.

It has been rather frustrating for me to try to follow the exchanges regarding this topic from its beginning in Meditation 832 not only because its discussants have failed to provide an operational definition of god sufficient to establish a common ground for the claims and counter claims being made concerning such a god's knowability but neither - and even more fundamentally - have any of them provided an accounting of what it would be to know anything.

Presumably, knowing something isn't the same as simply imagining or entertaining it as an idea or possibility. Unless and until someone provides BOTH an operational definition of god (or supreme being) including those characteristics by which such a being could be known AND an epistemological accounting including the necessary and sufficient conditions that would constitute what knowing such a being would mean, then what we all can know is that none of us knows what we're talking about.

Hence, this exchange both illustrates and demonstrates as matter of objective fact that the first or agnostic half of the UCTAA's motto (We don't know) is true, whether its second, apathetic and subjective half (and we don't care) is or not.