I do not limit meaning to science; I just llimit it to what is rational.If God is incoherent ,then He has no meaning. How do we know what are His attributes wihout just guessing them? hjow do we define Him without resort to ad hoc explanations? How can He be more than a pareidolia like seeing the man in the moon or a projection of human traits diviniezed? The via negativa just shows what He is not,thus of no help.
And with the Ockham, we see no use for Him in explanations as again, it would take ad hoc explanatons to expliain Him. Efficient causes are primary ones, there being no need to posit Him as the primary cause as His redundancy adds noting unlike what Alister MsGrath avers. Why would we need Thor as a primary and personal explanation as meteorology explains the weather?
Agnosticism as a method demands evidence.