Why most arguments for God prove God.

[SuperSentient]

If God exists, then it's no strange thing that there would be good arguments proving his existence.

Unlike a unicorn that can exist in some universe or planet we have no idea about, that cannot be proven, God can be proven in many ways. And this expected if creation has relationship with it both spiritually and ontologically.

All arguments that prove God:

1.

Perfection must exist to be defined (different than fully known). 
Perfection is defined.
Therefore Perfection exists.

Premise 1 and 2 are false. Perfection is not defined and it doesn't have to exist to be defined. 

2. If we are not perceived, we do not have an exact value.
The only thing that can see us exactly as we are is perfect judging perception.
We have an exact value.
Therefore God exists.

Premise 1 is problematic since it takes subjective perception and assumes that value judgments are objectively true from that. Premise 2 is a bare assertion that is meaningless in this case. Premise 3 is false since value is dependent upon a subjective agent. Also, Premise 4 doesn't logically follow since it assumes that our conception of value has a outer personal foundation. 

3. Our actions are inherited to us.
The only who can cause us to inherit our actions is a perfect judge.
Therefore a perfect judge exists.

This argument assumes inheriting something requires an external judge, which is an unfounded assumption.

4. If a hypothetical creator can create goodness/morality from nothing, then it would be arbitrary.
If it was arbitrary, it could be anything the Creator wanted it to be.
Morality cannot be anything a hypothetical Creator wants it to be.
Therefore Morality is Eternal.
Morality requires perception.
Therefore Eternal Perceiver of Morality exists.

Morality actually wouldn't be arbitrary if the standard monotheist conception of God had morality grounded in it since God is immutable. 
Premise 4 is unfounded here since it assumes a specific nature of morality (that it is objective). I would agree with premise 5, but you have to demonstrate that morality is actually eternal rather than start from a hypothetical creator.

5.  Everything requires a reason/explanation.
God is the only explanation that explains itself.
Therefore God exists.

Premise 1 is unfounded. We don't know what all exists and what exists without explanation. Even if something could conceptually explain itself, it wouldn't necessarily in reality.

6. Love speaks an eternal exalted language.
That Eternal exalted language has no limits to potential.
All potentials of love must have a basis.
The basis must be highest form of love.
Love is real.
Therefore God exists.

Premise 1, 2, 3, and 4 is unfounded. We attribute love to chemical reactions that form what we call emotional states, but to give this feeling a supernatural meaning has been done all throughout human history and the same rationale gave rise to religion, and is quite common to do. To say it is this way has never been justified and lacks adequate justification.

7. Existence is a perfection.
 God is defined to be All-perfect.
Therefore he must by definition exists (another way to look at is that perfection itself would not be defined without God's existence).

This commits the same fallacy the mainstream ontological arguments do. It starts from how we conceive and define God and holds that since we see it that way, it must be that way, simply defining something into existence or truth. 
Premise 1 is false. Perfection is a value statement and bare assertion.