"If something cannot be addressed by reason then it cannot be addressed, really by definition. Appeals to "faith" are mere mysticism. And if something cannot be addressed logically then it certainly shouldn't be used as the justification
for or basis of political thought."
The question of religious belief as a basis for political thought (or action) is really different than the one I was meaning to address. I was focused more on the argument that the fact that we cannot rationally know the nature or existence of God -- as suggested by the use of absurd examples of his form -- means that we know there is no God, or that any belief in God is contrary to, as opposed to merely beyond, reason.