What do you mean by being? I'm asking you to provide a definition without room for interpretation, without ambiguity.
I agree that it could probably be called not-a-thing. In Judaism for example, when dealing with concept of Nothing, we would say that G!d lacks "thingness", that G!d is not a thing that can be described because G!d is beyond all duality, all distinguishing characteristics, not hot or cold, not good or evil. However with your last statement I and a good number of rationalist philosophers of religion would disagree. There are many places in the history of religious writing where G!d is distinguished as separate from G!d's actions, separate from G!d's will. If you don't agree with or like that definition it's fine. Your personal opinion on the matter doesn't make it a less valid definition of G!d yet you continue to behave as if your own view is the way things really are.
I would gladly enter a conversation that involves premises I don't agree with for the sake of conversation and the development of ideas. I would accept those premises from the get-go, in that conversation, even though I don't believe in them. My issue from the start is that your premises have left a lot of ambiguity.