Existentialism and agnosticism

It all seems like so much horse **** to this atheist.

If you claim to know that God does not exist, please give your argument.

It could be Quietism ( an offshoot of existentialism) answers your question. Quietism "focuses on language and the use of words, and by its objective, which is to show that most philosophical problems are only pseudo-problems."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(philosophy)

One would have to directly ask Anselm and Aquinas what kind of God exactly they are talking about...I am not sure they clarified that well enough.

- A mind is a problem solver machine. Why would God need a mind when it has natural order ?...

...lets say that we buy the mind thing for a second:

- Does God has free will ? Can God not be perfect or do other then good ?

- If not then God is not all powerfull and can be put down as the ground of all Being or the Set of all Sets...God as a minor god is just another player that might or might not have created this simulated reality but becomes irrelevant for fundamental Ontological questions.

Moreover if Existence is defined as being the product of intention and mind who created God?

Certainly it is understandable God cannot create himself from his own bootstraps to exist before existing...in that sense an uncreated God concept is equated with the World as concept because the distinction of a mindless mathematical God as pure order, with no degrees of freedom, again, as different from the very idea of a World with mathematical natural order makes no sense. They are equivalent!

Once more, it seems we don't know enough of what to make of a God concept to even be agnostic about it...

Your question about 'existence of God' begs a more critical one about whether 'existence' is relative or absolute. As an atheist I concede that 'God exists' for believers because the the 'God concept' is useful to them.
In short, I maintain that as far as semantics is concerned, all we ever have is concepts . All concepts, from 'rocks' to gods' stand or fall on the basis of their contextual utility relative to the human language users who give them status as linguistic tokens used in communication and thinking.
The only substantial difference between 'an atheist' and 'a beliver' is whether the word 'God' is useful to them.
The abstract persistence of a word outside dynamic usage fools thinkers into assuming the persistence of 'things in themselves', but persistence is always relative to human lifespans even for 'rocks' !
'Agnosticism' is simplistic (fence sitting ) position which fails to take into account that the concept of 'existence' itself, like any other concept, is relativistic.

What about the existence of concepts, lets say for instance, just for the sake of the argument, in the Platonic sense?
Are you selling the idea your groups pov assumes no axioms?
Because if you do, what the hell are you selling that does not exist?
What does it mean to state that existence is relative? Relative to that which also does not exist???

The arrogance in your group current of thought lays in the contradiction of speaking about absolute relativism.
A contradiction in terms...
Speaking on language games, without an absolute frame of reference Relativism itself has no meaning to be raised in the first place...

I suggest that those who do not understand the contextual relativity of concepts,
including the concept of 'existence', should research (a) the non -representality of language movement and (b) the "e-prime" movement in philosophy which attempted to proscribe the use of the verb 'to be'.

You're clouding your argument with assumptions, leaps of logic, and question begging, i.e. taking premises as a given. For one, you're making a jump from the entertainment of the belief of a god to the entertainment of the belief of Hell as a punishment for lack of faith. The two beliefs are not necessarily tied to each other. Secondly, you're basing your argument on a limited definition of atheism. Atheism is also, and more correctly, a lack of belief in God or Gods. Agnosticism is about knowledge, specifically the lack thereof about the existence of God or Gods.

In regard to Anselm's argument, one can insert "the world" in God's stead and come up with the same conclusion.

In regard to Aquinas' theology, it's all predicated upon the assumption, i.e. it begs the question, that God exists.

Eschew obfuscation.

"The non-representality of language movement"...great glad to know you don't mean to represent anything with your talk. I can take it easier that way.

Anselm was clear enough. God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.

If "god" is infinite and by definition, the biggest of infinities (odd enough right there you can always add one more), "god" is uncountable, infinitesimally unrelated to itself and anything else, and non-logical. Not "love" (conection) but boundless fragmentation...and still by your own definition a contradiction in terms as the infinite set of creation summed up with "god" would form yet a bigger set.

The only part of this that makes sense is the last remark about a contradiction.
Spinoza says that God is absolutely infinite being. The absolutely infinite being would already include the “one more” that you imagine adding. (Aleph-null is not absolutely infinite.)
What does “infinitesimally unrelated to itself” mean?
Why is Anselm’s God non-logical?
Why do you imagine that that God is fragmentation?

'In regard to Anselm's argument, one can insert "the world" in God's stead and come up with the same conclusion.'

If that’s the case, perhaps it is a valid argument, since the conclusion is true, that is, the world exists.

'In regard to Aquinas' theology, it's all predicated upon the assumption, i.e. it begs the question, that God exists.'

You are mistaken if you are referring to Aquinas’ five ways of proving God’s existence. He does not assume that God exists, though at the end of each way he tacitly slips in the assumption that he has proven the existence of a single entity ( as opposed to, e.g., multiple unmoved movers) , which he has not.

If you gonna do infinities to follow Anselm "god" pick the bigger one which is irrational and uncountable, thus fragmentary, turning "god" infinitely unrelated to itself own properties, on the infinitesimal level, one by one, and therefore non-logical.
Finally, I think God is the opposite, it has finite properties but was not created, its a fractal boundless loop, it is not a mind because as the ground of all being it doesn't need to ask questions, solve problems which IT doesn't have, or have any goals which are not already accomplished in Being itself outside time, nor escape its own root Logic which it cannot change. Yes "god" is Love because it connects, because it is rational because it is countable and intelligible. Finite yet everything! The prime mover, that "raises" conscious beings yet not conscious of itself! Consciousness requires awareness within time and therefore limited to contingent knowledge which in turn leads to the necessity of computation/thinking troubleshooting problems based on guesses about future states of affairs. The true abstract mathematical rock of all Being is pantheistic, a spacetime block unmovable Universe, done, accomplished, quiet, timeless, and yes you guessed it DEAD!

For the nth time here it goes, the video that never leaves my thoughts!...

It is claimed that we did. So why is that axiomatic about God?

You stole that right outta the Bible, huh.

The context of that sentence was criticizing top-down from Fresco's mind first POV, not down-up evolution...so nop it doesn't fit the bill!