Dogmatics in Outline (1949) 
Context: When attempts were later made to speak systematically about God and to describe His nature, men became more talkative. They spoke of God's aseity, His being grounded in Himself; they spoke of God's infinity in space and time, and therefore of God's eternity. And men spoke on the other hand of God's holiness and righteousness, mercifulness and patience. We must be clear that whatever we say of God in such human concepts can never be more than an indication of Him; no such concept can really conceive the nature of God. God is inconceivable. <!-- p. 46
                                    
“Thus to say that God is ineffable is to say that no concepts apply to Him, and that He is without qualities.”
p. 33.
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Walter Terence Stace 36
British civil servant, educator and philosopher. 1886–1967Related quotes
                                        
                                         Adv. Prax. 18 http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0788/_P1.HTM 
 Against Praxeas https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm 
Original: (la) Igitur unus deus pater, et absque eo alius non est: quod ipse inferens non filium negat sed alium deum: ceterum alius a patre filius non est.
                                    
                                        
                                        "On a Portrait of a Deaf Man" line 25, from Old Lights for New Chancels. 
Poetry
                                    
“We can't even say that God exists because our notion of existence is too limited to apply to God.”
                                        
                                        Ode interview (2009) 
Context: People like Thomas Aquinas would say we can't talk about God as a creator because we can only have in our heads the idea of a human creator and that can't apply to God. We can't even say that God exists because our notion of existence is too limited to apply to God. People were instructed to think about this in those terms.
                                    
Source: Existentialism Is a Humanism (1946), p. 28
Variant: If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.
Source: The Light of Day (1900), Ch. XI: Points of View
                                        
                                        Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Lectures on the philosophy of religion, together with a work on the proofs of the existence of God. Vol 2 Translated from the 2d German ed. 1895 Ebenezer Brown Speirs 1854-1900, and J Burdon Sanderson p. 27 
Lectures on Philosophy of Religion, Volume 2 
Context: An Englishman who, by a most careful investigation into the various representations, has sought to discover what is meant by Brahma, believes that Brahma is an epithet of praise, and is used as such just because he is not looked on as being himself solely this One, but, on the contrary, everything says of itself that it is Brahma. I refer to what Mill says in his History of India. He proves from many Indian writings that it is an epithet of praise which is applied to various deities, and does not represent the conception of perfection or unity which we associate with it. This is a mistake, for Brahma is in one aspect the One, the Immutable, who has, however, the element of change in him, and because of this, the rich variety of forms which is thus essentially his own is also predicated of him. Vishnu is also called the Supreme Brahma. Water and the sun are Brahma.
                                    
                                        
                                        2:568 
"Quotes", Late Notebooks, 1982–1990: Architecture of the Spiritual World (2002)
                                    
Source: Grace for the Moment: Inspirational Thoughts for Each Day of the Year