"God transcends space and time"
I agree, however "transcend" means "to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)". That definition precludes material existence acting on or controlling "God" but it does not preclude "God" acting on or controlling material existence. [I am simply pointing out the logical consequences of the actual definitions of YOUR chosen terms.] Once again, we return to the "GRAVITY ANALOGY" ... matter cannot "control" gravity, but gravity can control matter. Gravity transcends material existence (but not space and time).
"which makes all arguments for God’s existence unimportant."
Why? How does the transcendent nature of God make all arguments UNIMPORTANT ("
lacking in importance : not important : minor, trivial")?
Questions of "First Cause" alone would seem to make arguments for and against the existence of God IMPORTANT ("
marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence"). When one adds in questions of "life after death" and "purpose/meaninglessness of human existence", the "Question of God" becomes of first importance.
"We are literally talking about something that exists while at the same time being completely beyond our grasp"
Technically a half-truth. I agree that God exists (frankly, even prehistoric man acknowledged that fundamental reality in their burial rituals). It is also true that finite beings can never know everything about an infinite being (that "transcend" thing, again). However, God is not completely inscrutable. We can know about God what God has revealed about himself. Here is a short example:
Romans 1:18-21 [NASB20]
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened.
- ETERNAL POWER: First Cause tells us that SOMETHING caused the UNIVERSE to exist. From science we know: A beginning singularity of unimaginable power that caused matter to form from energy, elements to form from matter and Time-Space to expand at the speed of light. This "uncaused cause" must posses great power and it must have existed "before" the singularity event to be the cause of the event.
- DIVINE NATURE: As mentioned previously, every culture in every location and at every time (including pre-history) has an innate understanding that death is "wrong" and that there is something beyond the "physical now". Some people groups might invent a story about an invisible realm and something after death to comfort themselves ... but all people groups without exception? As a scientist, what is more likely, a 100% correlation with a causality or "the mother of all coincidences"? The theological term is Imago Dei (Latin: "Image of God"). People are born with an innate (apriori) knowledge that God exists because we are created in His image. Atheists make a conscious choice to suppress that knowledge.
"it’s silly"
Once again, Why? Another conclusion that seems just irrational and emotional unfounded opinion that does not logically follow from the prior statement. What is SILLY ("exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment: weak in intellect: playfully lighthearted and amusing: trifling, frivolous") about "talking about something that exists while at the same time being completely beyond our grasp"? Is it "silly" to discuss the origin of life since that is currently "completely beyond our grasp"?