I agree that God is infinite. I just don't like using what seems to be a negation as a description for God, or an absence (absence of a boundary)
To think of God as perfection itself, or goodness itself, already seems to imply infinity.
For instance, if you take everything that is perfect in this world and lump it together, that doesn't necessarily mean that "perfection" has been used up, or has reached its limit. You could imagine adding another perfect cherry to the lump, and you would call it perfect. And this could go on to infinity, and "Perfect" ness would never be used up.
Likewise, if perfection itself is God, it is already implied that it can never be used up, and is infinite. The distinction I"m trying to make is that saying that God is infinitely perfect seems to be adding attributes to Him, whereas if you say he is Perfection itself, it immediately implies that it is indeed his essence and not just an attribute.
We are agreeing with each other pretty much one hundred percent. I just don't think that referring to God as something without boundary doesn't seem like it's an adequate description of God, that is, to say he is without something (a boundary).