You seem to be highly confused on what constitutes as a proper metaphysical description of God, or of a possible God.
To begin with, religion may or may not be true, but the concept of God can probably be true despite religion being completely wrong on some ends. SΓΈren Kiekegaard, and other theistic philosophers alike, had proper respect for the concept of God, even Nietzsche an Atheist philosopher, respected the role that God played in the life of individuals, giving them a feeling of an essence or meaning.
Now since you're disputing the validity of certain claims, I'd like you to consider the fact that, can you prove God doesn't exist? Even as an agnostic, I've found this to be a tedious question, what is the criteria for existence? If you're going for an absolute, science cannot answer you, so there is no absolute truth that science can offer, not one. This is not to say that science is wrong, far from that, the method of reasoning that science uses, is known philosophically as Modus Ponens, mode of denying, which aims at disproving the possible causes of an incident, although this can make something less wrong, it never makes something absolutely true. There are a lot of questions that science can never prove, like, is the method of measurement science uses correct? (To prove this science would have to use the same method of measurement, to prove itself, this is circular reasoning). Hence we turn to philosophy, especially ontology and metaphysics, which deal with the problems of existence. You can easily dismiss certain arguments for God, like the Teleological argument, or the arguments of Intelligent design by some method of reasoning which can disprove premises of said argument.
The one reason I advocate for a good degree of religious, and spiritual thought is mainly because of the comfort one finds in the concept of God, what is it to you or any other person what someone believes in so long as it gives them comfort?
***
