There are far too many evidences that God DOES exist to claim that it is absolute and knowable. It is a highly debatable notion at best.

Short version: Atheism is self defeating.

If God does not exist then all reason and logic is subjective since there is no over arching mind that is a constant standard to judge reason against. Your "mind" is merely your brain reacting to and with chemicals and firing synapses. Therefore, you have no basis to think that your reasoning is objectively and absolutely true. You are merely reacting to stimuli. Since you have no basis for saying then that God does not exist objectively your statement is false.

BTW, I've presented this same challenge to atheists regularly for years, and they've yet to overcome it, because there is no way to prove that human reason is binding at the enormous scales typically being examined by such conversations.

And when you think about it just a bit, it's not very likely that human reason is so qualified. Human beings are very very very small in comparison to the scales being discussed, and even if reason is universally relevant, our ability to reason is near fatally poor.

I believe a solution to this problem lies within the Catholic experience, the act of love. That surrender of the self brings peace, and with peace one is no longer so concerned with all the huge unanswerable questions. My wife is such a creature, clearly I am not, full disclosure.

In the sense that I think you mean it, agreed. It seems very unlikely a sane healthy person could permanently have no beliefs. That said, it's true that some folks are profoundly a-philosophical, so what beliefs they have might be limited to relatively small matters of day to day life.

It seems worth saying that it's certainly possible to temporarily not have beliefs, even for great philosophers such as ourselves. :-) Beliefs are made of thought. To the degree that the volume of thought is lowered or eliminated, beliefs vanish.

We might wish to temporarily not have beliefs because that would shift the focus of our awareness away from the internal symbolic realm towards the external real world. If one is attempting to determine whether a God exists in the real world, or one is attempting to connect with that God, this would seem to matter more than a little bit.

I would propose that religions are typically launched by those who focus on direct experience, and then maintained by less ambitious folks who are content with God as an idea.

God is always described with anthropomorphic language because it is the the closest approximation to God we have in language to convey the will of God. Classical theists don't claim that God creates how a human creates, but it is both of their natures and will to create but the term is not univocal. For Catholics, it's always been understood this way:

“Men, indeed, are not able to make something from nothing, but only from
existing material. God, however, is greater than men first of all in
this: that when nothing existed beforehand, he called into existence the
very material for his creation” (Ireneas, Against Heresies 2:10:4 [A.D. 189])

God doesn't see, hear, hold, touch, walk in the garden, sit at a throne, or create in a manner you suggest, only metaphorically as best we can understand with our finite and limited knowledge.