First, I wish to thank you both for your effort. The problem is not that I don’t understand what you talk about, because I do understand it (I had to study philosophy in college, and I have a decent, but not genius IQ. So comprehension is not the problem.). The problem is that we must use human language and human terms, since that is all we have.
What you both say is that God is so “different”, that human concepts are useless when applied to God. That would be fine, if you only said that God is totally unintelligible, beyond any human comprehension. But most apologists prefer to use “super-intelligible”, which is simply the politically correct way of saying that God is incomprehensible. When you say that God’s love is “super-love”, then this sentence has no informational value. It is an empty utterance. When God’s “super-love” not just does not manifest itself in a manner which we can experience, but that “super-love” is compatible with causing/allowing all the things we actually experience in our life, then the phrase “super-love” is not just unintelligible, but it becomes a “cuss-word”. And the problem is that the apologists assert that God has all these “positive attributes”, but those positive attributes are meaningless. Furthermore, if someone points out the negative aspects, then the reply is: “you don’t understand what you talk about”. You can’t have it both ways.
I am not totally ignorant about Aquinas, I merely see his work as much ado about nothing. The problem with esoteric terminology is not that it is esoteric, rather that it is without meaning, and the proponents are too shy to admit it. (Furthermore he commits a bunch of logical fallacies, but the defenders do not admit them.) “The emperor has no clothes!” - and only the street urchin has the courage to say it out loud.
There is the “god” of agnosticism. When you ask who or what that “god” is, the “agnostic believer” answers honestly (!): “I don’t know”. When you ask him what does he believe in, his answer is (again): “I don’t know”. When you ask him why does he believe this, he says: “I don’t know”. We could agree that if someone has no idea what he believes in, than that “belief” is nonsensical. The problem is that as soon as we start to “scratch” the Christian God… what we find is the “god of agnosticism” in a window dressing.
By the way, God does not “communicate” with us. No one can see God, no one can experience God, no one can hear God… regardless of what some people say.