Proving God in 20 statements

[smfortune]

---

Do I really mention greatness before explanatory power?

You mentioned as "greatest explanation".  You said that must be God but never explained why. But if you define "greatest" explanation as in the sense the explanation is the greatest possible explanation in the sense of praise and glory, then this different then the impression it gives as in explanatory power.

Then your argument would be nothing but affirming the conclusion.

You start off saying God is the greatest explanation of the universe, and then assert that the greatest explanation must be the true explanation of the universe. However you did nothing to prove that.

Yes God is philosophically speaking the greatest explanation in terms of glory/beauty/majesty, because that is how God is defined (as absolute glory/beauty/majesty). 

But stating the universe must have such an explanation behind it has not been proven by this argument. It's been asserted, then it leads exactly to where it started. That's not an argument. That's a fallacy of affirming the conclusion.

I say that God must be as an ultimate explanation because such a conclusion is logically derived by the preceding premises (as per proper form of all syllogisms; no problem there). Now remember the conclusion is Eu <-> G(hat)x; No where is this presented in the premises (unless it is an enthymeme which it is not). So the criticism of asserting/affirming the conclusion is unfair. You could check to see if I'm wrong. You may doubt the soundness of "Any characteristic "greatness" refers to God". But like I explained previously, greatness is defined as greatest possible (in line with the premise). Which is true of God. God by definition is the greatest possible of everything (if he so chooses). The metaphysical concepts of glory, beauty and majesty while true of God are not limiting characteristics of God's possible greatness - which extents to even explanatory power.