How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Belacqua]

This is the sort of thing I find really baffling about theology is that in trying to make their presupposed God out to be so vastly different from anything else in existence,

The way you write this, you seem to be assuming the psychology of a vast number of people, most of whom are long dead. 

Do you take it for granted that they begin with a "presupposed God" and then have some motivation to make it "vastly different"? 

Rather than imagining the motivations of people from very different times and places, I think it makes more sense to deal with the arguments as given. 

If you just begin with the axiom that lots of people were disingenuous, it looks like an easy way out. 

 it ends up being so impossible to the point that some theologians are careful not to assign attributes to it while nevertheless describing it in some way, and some even wondering if it makes sense to say God exists while presupposing God is!

If you're interested in working on why many theologians feel it's important not to say that God has attributes, that's something we could discuss, I guess. 

But it looks as though you've already judged that their motives are bad, so their conclusions must be dishonest. 

As for why it's misleading to say that God exists, it's because it doesn't exist in the way that objects exist. God, being existence itself, is not one object existing in addition to all the other objects. 

I agree that many people are dishonest in their arguments, or have their logic overwhelmed by a desire to reach a given conclusion. We see it all the time. Still, this isn't sufficient to dismiss the arguments themselves. You know about the ad hominem fallacy and all that, right.