"god is above our minds" and my way of arguing.

Recently my encounters with theists have ended with them not responding anymore or them saying "god isnt subject to our logic, he is above our minds." i have a big problem with this. When one makes the claim to me that god exists, they are making a claim. The rational way by which to assess any claim is with logic and reason. That's what i always try to do. I look at their premises and conclusions and i make inferences about them, where their argument stems from, and i am always, before anything else, able to see any flaws in the argument. Now comes the difficult part, the articulation of my response. i have become more and more aware over the past month that articulation is key here. I try to find an articulation of my reasoning that most appeals to their sense of reasoning. If i were to just throw it out there in my reasoning they generally nitpick and are somewhat dishonest or unfair in their evaluation of my argument. i suspect its a defense mechanism for their beliefs or something like that, because compartmentalization isn't uncommon with theists. I used to do it as well but as I thought about it more and more i started to see flaws. Anyways, once i articulate my response well enough in my head or through discussion, they stop responding or say god isnt subject blah blah blah. this is where i get pissed.

1. They make a claim and present an argument for it.

2. I take it apart.

3. they say the thing their claiming is above our minds.

Here's why i get pissed. on 3, they firstly presuppose the thing their claiming exists, secondly, they don't treat it as if its a claim they're making to me, and third, they end all discussion and progress by shutting down all ability to listen to reason. I get why they say this and i understand their reasoning. To them god already exists,

to me he doesn't. he must exist outside the universe or on another plane of existence or some shit like that. Lets just say outside the universe, now if god did exist, i would say we cant apply our understanding of logic to him, because we don't know how things work outside the universe. The universe is our reality and our reality has rules which we base our logic and reason on. We cannot imagine something we don't know of. We don't know of any example which no logical rules apply. So we cant imagine a place where they don't apply. A being existing outside of our universe/reality could not be said to be subject to our logic because we don't know what the outside of the universe is like. That's if a being like that exists. Something that actually exists is obviously different from a claim of existence of something. A claim of something which isn't subject to our logic, is subject to our logic. The claim is subject I mean. This is because its a claim, the thing in the claim has not yet been demonstrated to exist, hence why its a claimed existence of something. So we can use reason and logic to assess the claim of existence of something which isn't subject to our logic and reason, so we do assess it. then they claim it isnt subject to our logic. They fail to realize we are talking about the claim, not the thing. the something in the claim has logical flaws, we present the flaws and say the claim doesnt make sense. they then presuppose its existence and say its not subject. 

i then say "well then dont expect me to believe a claim of something i cant apply any reason to. your claimed god is logically impossible from my understanding and you havent proven he exists, nor could you to any extent because he is above our minds if he exists and therefore belief in him and non belief are on the same level because neither of them matter if he is above us. belief is in our minds and i choose not to believe because it doesn't make sense to me and if such a being existed then his being above us means his existence wouldn't matter in any way to us." 

main point: dont try to use reason and logic to convince me of somethings existence if its above our minds and my logical objections dont matter to you.