> However, I submit that that is irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

Because the analogy breaks down when you carry it far enough? Yeah. As with the dictionary analogy and any analogy about anything, ultimately there end up being differences, as I already admitted. I even told you WHERE the sister analogy stops being useful, and now you point this out like it's news to me.

> If you can't do this, if it boils down to an appeal to the unknowable, then again I say you have no claim to Truth.

God is unknowable only in the sense that he's not *completely* knowable. As with his creation, one can learn more about him/it all the time but never complete that knowledge. So I will substitute "incommunicatable" for "unknowable," as I think that word better suits us here, and then let you conclude whatever the heck you want to from that, because this discussion ran its course ages ago.