I contend that there is no epistemological basis for:
1. the concept of perfection as ultimate greatness.
2. the idea that the Supreme Being must be perfect.
If perfection is defined as conformity to a given standard,
then it is a meaningful, measurable, and useful term.
that greater than which nothing exists,
or that greater than which nothing is possible,
or that greater than which nothing can be imagined,
then what standard?
then you are saying nothing but that He is what He is.
then greatness of what quality?
Having proposed a definition, how do you justify it?
Given your definition and its justification, can you show that it has other than arbitrary meaning?
Given the presuppositions that the Supreme Being exists, and is perfect in some meaningful way, why must that Being be identical to the God who intervenes in human affairs, with whom we have to deal?
The Supreme Being may be as far removed from the Creator of this universe as the president of the U.S. is removed from a child with an ant farm. And that Creator may be equally far removed from the God of our experience, and/or the God to whom we are accountable.