If knowledge of God is beyond rational definition and finite knowledge, then I fail to see how you can define God as the creator of all, since this is itself a definition. If in your stubbornness and pride you refuse to accept that God has well defined attributes, then I fail to see how your concept of God is any different from absolutely nothing.
If we cannot know something of God (if we cannot have negative knowledge), then it follows necessarily that not only do we have no knowledge of God, it is impossible to have any meaningful or rational knowledge of God, because as soon as it makes any sense it becomes less than God; it becomes finite. This means that God cannot reveal himself to us. Therefore it makes no sense that any of us even have a meaningful concept of God let alone revelation.
Inocente is referring, I think, to that aspect of religion that parallels scientism, in other words substituting intellectual ideas for actual relationship and dogma for spirituality. Saying that “God is the Creator” is a symbol that has a dubious referent. In other words it is self referent to other thoughts about what constitutes Creation, all of them necessarily limited and not experientially referent to what they are “meant” to symbolize. So while “computer” is an actual reference for you, what it means in its completeness is not. Similarly, one can say that though the world is taken as evidence for God, it is an incomplete reference. The implications are staggering.
And you are right. God cannot be known as a sense object or an object of reason, as God is not thought. So whatever you think, it is a thought “about.” The map is not the territory. And this is why the mysics, say Aquinas and St Teresa of Avila refer to intellections as “straw.”
And in fact, the most useful symbolization of God is as an absolute Nothing that is yet ALL. It is easy to use a materialistic form of thought in this regard as we are all swimming in the industrial ontology of these times which has gutted the insides of things. It has happened with religion as well. The entirety of the interior word called “I” and “we” has become the world of “it” and “its” in the public eye. And this is why there is such a contention on here between the formalist faithers who have a legalistic faith based on definitions, and those who have some mystical experience and who have gone into what constitutes an actual spirituality.
And God can reveal much, but not through the scaffolding of scripture past a certain point. Scriptures only mean there is something to look
for inside and may or may not provide useful signposts. They are themselves not God and yet bear interpretation. But the meaning of that is to be found inside, not in thought constructs in the “legalities” of religion. Why did St. Thomas want to burn his work? Why did someone on another thread realize “I know nothing!”? Was he suddenly devoid of “facts?” No. He just crossed a threshold of maturity in awareness of where spirituality actually lives.
So now you might see why Jesus had some contentions with the Pharisees. God is a Living Experience, not a mind structure of words handed down from the Bronze Age or modified two thousand years ago. All that may be useful, but it is not the experience itself. And that is at least my take on what Inocente might be saying. And as a tag, one of the most respected and time honored ways of practical meditation is exactly a negation process about what God is not, as we can’t in our human way know what god IS. But that negation process is capable of yielding golden fruit.
It’s not either/or - it’s both.
I don’t think God can be divided. He’s unmutable. He’s always God and He’s everywhere, inside and outside time.