I’m not sure I’m following you either. I’ll try to restate a bit, and I hope to understand you better as well.
First, I’d trace this part of the thread back to this post
To me, this seems to be a philosophical and epistemological point, and not a theological one. I’m discussing this point specifically. I posted about it recently here.
A question, do you mean to say that “It is a dogma of Christianity that God transcends His creation.” is not a supernatural argument? I don’t think supernatural and superstitious mean the same thing. The first definition I find is “(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.” which squares with my understanding.
Many people have discussed an “idea of god” and none have done so in a way that Christian theology talks of God. I think you should appreciate the irony in this - our understanding of God is not a product of an idea, or of a natural event(s).
I think it’s enough for my purpose here that it’s not a natural event. Hence, it’s supernatural, for what it’s worth.
The transcendence of God has been discussed many centuries before we would think of the scientific method, so it is incorrect to imply that this may be a way to exclude an idea or hypothesis from scientific scrutiny.
I’m not saying it’s a way to do anything. I’m only saying that it isn’t being excluded from scientific consideration by design. Making a quick edit here to add that it’s probably a chicken-or-egg type situation.
I must say that I am unable to comprehend the rest of your comments - perhaps if you bring some specifics regarding transcendence or other theological matters, I may be able to make further comment.
I hope that clears things up a bit. Thanks. I don’t know what “transcendence” is for a start. I guess that’s not a specific though