A Perfect Being Cannot Exist

"A being who creates perfection is more perfect than a being who does not. Therefore, a perfect being does not create imperfection. Your argument is like saying that even though God is logical being, he could still create a perfectly spherical cube because his creation is not him. This is obviously a logical abomination, as the most logical being ever would create nothing illogical like that. Similarly, saying that a perfect God created imperfection is a logical abomination, as the most perfect being ever would not create anything imperfect like us." - RationalGod did create perfection. He did not create imperfection. Therefore this is logically conistent. God is perfect, and God created a perfect creation."The above from my opponent is logically incoherent. Reality means everything in existence, so there cannot be a whole new reality created because that would mean that we have two "everything that exists" which would be absolutely absurd. If God created imperfection, then he shifted reality as a whole from a state of perfection to imperfection and made reality as a whole have a less than a 100% perfection rate. This choice is not consistent with 100% perfection. Thus, Premise 3 still stands firm. The crucial premise, is premise 4." - RationalNo, equating the creation with God is logically incoherent, and that is not who the Abrahamic God is. That is what you are doing right now, you are saying that God and His creation are one reality, which is not so. And again, God is perfect and created a perfect creation. Show me how I am wrong."Reality = all that exists. You cannot have two realities without contradicting yourself. I think my opponent is equivocating with regards to reality here. Also to say that the universe and God are generally as perfect is to say these two are just as equal in perfection:(i) An omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being(ii) A dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of spaceThis is outrageous clearly, as God is self-evidently more generally perfect. To deny the intuitions that lead us to this truth, is to deny that the very intuitions which leads theists to attribute certain "perfect" qualities to God in the first place. If my opponent means that the universe is categorically perfect (as in, perfect for a universe), then I already explained why this position is fatal to the theist." - RationalGod and His creation are two different realities, two different things. You are trying to equate God with His creation, which goes against the idea of the Abrahamic God. He transcends your concept of reality, the creation and the Creator can not be said to be the same thing, that is clear.You are also implying that this dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space is not perfect. I say it is a perfect reality. So even if you do want to be technical and go against the definition of God being completely separate from His creation, this reality is still perfect."I already showed this is incoherent with regards to my argument...." - Rational Okay. So lets say the totality of all that is. Because you can't equate the creation with the Creator. That much is clear. Again, God did create a perfect creation. Show me how I am wrong."It is not consistent, as there is an equivocating with the word "perfect". Con is claiming that because..." - RationalIt is not only perfect "for a universe," it is perfect period. You have to show me how the creation is not perfect. You have yet to do that. You merely gave me your opinion that it is not perfect. I see the creation as perfect in every way."My opponent is confusing personal standards with logical necessity. (i) The universe is completely perfect, but has some imperfect parts(ii) The universe is completely perfect, and has all perfect parts(ii) is completely perfect necessarily due to the laws of logic, it has nothing to do with any subjective beliefs. Since my opponent is confusing:(i) Subjective understandingwith(ii) Logical Necessity...The rebuttal from Con here is an utter failure." - RationalIt's actually the opposite. You are confusing personal standards and understandings with the creation and its Creator. In fact, you could say we both are. I say the universe is perfect, you say it is not. You have to show me how the universe is not perfect."This is a straw man. My argument is not that God would remove aspects from what he has created, my argument is that he would never create the universe in the first place because the universe is generally less perfect than God, even if it is perfect for a universe. Also, to say that everything in the universe is perfect is to include the beings as well. This would makes Charles Manson a God."Not really. You have clearly stated that the universe is not perfect because people like Charles Manson are not perfect. You brought up the problem of evil. If you say it is not perfect because of Charles Manson, and I say the opposite, what then?And again, you are equating the creation with the Creator, which simply can't be. The Creator for being a creator is perfect, and creation for being a creation is perfect. You have to show me how I am wrong. In no way can you equate the creation to the Creator."If the above is true it is only because God made it that way. God did not have to make it that way. Therefore acting like the way things are is necessary is nothing more than a cruel joke. Yes, if you take anything out of the equation it all falls apart. However, if God exists it did not have to be this way and he would have created that which is more in line with 100% perfect (or even better, not create at all as he is supposed to be 100% perfect himself)." - RationalActually, I would argue that God did indeed have to make it that way, a perfect being is also sentient, and there is a lot of wisdom in creating the universe in this way. You have to show me how I am wrong. I say that God created something which is one-hundred percent in line with perfection just as the Creator is perfect. As God has free will, so do we. That is an attribute of God, therefore we too must have that attribute."P1 fails because reality = the totality of existence. He would only be a "perfect reality" if he did not create anything and just existed in an eternal equilibrium of perfection. The second he creates anything less perfect generally than himself, he just lowered the percentage of perfection of reality as a whole. This would conflict with choice making consistent with 100% perfection. Ergo, God would not create the universe.P2 fails for Con by default. If the "parts" are "perfect", and Charles Manson is a "part" of the universe, and Charles Manson is a "being", then he is God by definition.P3 is based on failed premises. Also, what perfection is my opponent using?(i) Categorical (ii) General" -RationalYou are in your way equating God with the creation, which simply can't be, for they are two different entities. You are also giving your own opinion as to what perfect is.My Rebuttal 1. A perfect being exists.2. The perfect being has free will.3. The perfect being creates outside of itself, the universe. And naturally, because the perfect being must create an equally perfect universe, there must be the possibility of free will, thereby allowing the likes of Charles Manson. 4. The universe is perfect, and made up of perfect parts. Simply because there is evil, does not make it imperfect. Just because there is a dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space, does not make it imperfect. On the contrary, these are necessities. 5. Therefore because the Creator and the creation are both perfect, with perfect parts (including free will), they are both logically consistent.