To explain why we can define God to affirm his existence!

[Esquilax]

For example, you can think a thought and never do it but it would be a really awesome thing to do for the world. Or you can do it. We all know the latter is better because is HAS REAL existence, and REAL effect.

It's more beautiful and praiseworthy act than simply to imagine.

Greatness and existence are linked. That all possible greatness necessarily has to derive it's reality from existence and not from mere imagination or possibility.

God being conceived, it automatically means he exists, even though we don't fully conceive him.

Two problems with this: For one, your premises also work in reverse. Like, you can do a thing that's really terrible for the world, or you can just imagine it and never do it, which would be far greater because it would have NO existence, no REAL effect. Therefore, greatness and non-existence are linked. Therefore, god being conceived, it automatically means he doesn't exist.

Do you see what happens when you mistake vaguely connected free association with a legitimate position?

Secondly, the greatness you're talking about is inherently subjective and based in human desires... and reality is under no obligation to conform to similar standards. It's no accident that your one example of greatness being predicated on existence is a human-derived awesome thing, being enacted for the edification of human beings, even if just the actor themselves. The moment you try to talk about greatness divorced from subjective actors, you'll find you can't: greatness as a condition requires subjective metrics for what is great. Rendered without the obscured premises then, your argument is "I feel like god existing would be great, and I feel like great things should exist, therefore god exists." It's barely anything, really.