What would you call my new beliefs?

[SteveII]

But that's the point: if you define God is the creator of all things, and then cite God as the 'best explanation' for the creation of the universe, you are engaging in circular reasoning. Until and unless God can be defined outside of what you wanted to prove, you're simply engaging in philosophical tail-chasing.

My point has nothing to do with verificationism.

Boru

Okay, but the formal argument (say the KCA) does not just assert God. It reasons (through inference) what characteristics are needed to bring the universe into existence given the scientific evidence and the metaphysical evidence we have at hand. It concludes that God, a person already defined elsewhere, is the best explanation that fit the criteria.