All you are saying with that is that God is, to intellectual purposes, nil.
And I'd invite you to expand on what usage of "transcendent" precludes any description or consistency.
This is incoherent gibberish.
An interesting way to put it. I'd say I disagree profoundly with Augustine's attempt to rationalize God.
I call my view "narrative Christianity". We "know" God through stories about him that relate to who we are and our relationship to the transcendent. And stories are not bound by logic or consistency.
Except for that, God is "wholly Other" as Bultmann says. Whatever we think God is, he is not.
As to transcendence, it can't be bound by logic or reason or empiricism or it wouldn't be transcendence. If it could be stabilized by any these, it wouldn't transcend them but would simply be an object of human thought, and fall into an ontic relationship.
By the way, it seems to me that, taking the cue from Heidegger, our own authentic existence is transcendent, in that we understand the world as the world as a whole, which contains the relations of logic, identity, etc. It is our transcendent condition that makes understanding of our day to day relationships possible, according to Heidegger. But what the significance of that condition's relationship to God, if any, is not something I have pursued, though I think it's something Jean-Luc Marion has discussed.