A Perfect Being Cannot Exist

Perfect = Maximally Great "To say that I tacitly endorse Anselmian Perfect Being Theology is an understatement...I am an enthusiastic proponent...The Anselmian conception of God as the greatest conceivable being or most perfect being has guided philosophical speculation..." - William Lane Craig [1]If I want to have an intermediate of sorts, it makes more sense to say "x" is "kind of great" than "x" is "kind of perfect". I mean, something can be kind of great but it seems weird to say kind of perfect. Regardless, I will interchange between the two in this debate; keep in mind that the mean the same thing theistically. If I switch between them it is for ease of explanation.Argument Against a Perfect Being (AKA God)P1: If God exists, he is a perfect being*"This follows from classical Theism"P2: If a perfect being exists, his choices are consistent with 100% perfection*"Anything less than 100% perfection is not perfection at all, but imperfection. Between two hypothetical beings; the one who has choices consistent with 100% perfection is self-evidently the perfect being, over a being who has choices consistent with imperfection. To state otherwise would seem to be an absurdity."P3: A being who makes choices consistent with 100% perfection, would not choose to shift reality from:(i) A reality consisting of 100% perfectionto(ii) A reality consisting of imperfection (less than 100% perfection)."This seems to follow naturally and is self-evident."P4: If a perfect being exists, creating the universe would be shifting reality from (i) to (ii)."Denial of this entails that either the universe and its entities is God, or that the universe is just as perfect. This destroys the notion of God. Therefore, the theist would have to concede that the universe and the entities it contains are imperfect. This means that if a perfect being exists; reality consisted of 100% perfection prior to the universe, while reality now consists of imperfection."P5: A perfect being would not choose to create the universe."This follows naturally from the preceding premises"P6: If God exists, a perfect being would choose to create the universe."This follows from classical Theism"Conclusion: God does not exist."This follows naturally from the preceding premises"Possible ObjectionsThe argument is logically valid, so my guess is that my opponent is going to deny P4; as the other premises are extremely self-evident. The objection will probably be with regards to how the universe is perfect. Since the universe is perfect, then it would be compatible with a perfect being. Well, if the universe is completely perfect then either:(i) The universe is completely perfect, but has some imperfect parts(ii) The universe is completely perfect, and has all perfect partsBoth (i) and (ii) contradict each other, so they both cannot be true. Which one is true? Well, saying (i) is true is the logical equivalent to:(i) The house is completely red, but has some blue partsThe above makes no sense, as a completely red house would have all red parts. Similarly, a completely perfect universe would have all perfect parts (logic 101). Since (i) is out of the question deductively, that leaves us with (ii). However, "beings" are part of the universe. If God is defined as a "perfect" "being", and (ii) entails that all the parts are "perfect", then his means that according to the definition of God, every single being on Earth is God including Charles Manson. This position is fatal to the theist; and I will explain it further. What I suspect my opponent will do is equivocate between two types of perfection. I will explain below:Categorical Perfection/ Greatness and General Perfection/ GreatnessMy opponent is going to argue for the notion that the universe is perfect, and therefore the beginning of the universe would not shift reality from 100% perfection to imperfection. Therefore, P4 is false and my argument fails. Con will claim that the universe is a perfect universe, and thus is perfect and compatible with a perfect being. Does this argument hold up? I would say no. There is a confusion between categorical and general perfection/ greatness. If the universe is as a whole is perfect, then that only means that it is perfect...for a universe (its category). If part of the universe like an asteroid is perfect, this only means it is perfect...for an asteroid (its category). If a grain of sand is perfect, then this only means it is perfect...for a grain of sand (you get the picture). This route is fatal for the theist as I already showed, because what about beings? If we take this category type of perfection and apply it to beings then this means we are are perfect beings. Thus, we are Gods by definition. This makes no sense. If God is a perfect and maximally great then he has omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. However, if the universe and everything in is perfect for what it is, and humans are beings, then it follows that we are perfect beings. The theist must avoid this route because it leads to the conclusion that reality right now is not 100% perfect because it contains us. Why? Well any honest and rational being who had to dub one of two beings "perfect" between:Being A: Maintains reality at a level of 100% perfection eternallyorBeing B: Maintained reality at a level of 100% perfection, but shifted reality into a state of imperfection (less than 100% perfection)...Would agree that clearly Being A deserves the title of "perfect" and Being B obviously does not. Therefore, a perfect being would not have created anything imperfect, or that tainted reality if he exists. Now what about general perfection or greatness over categorical? Well, my I-phone is generally greater than a grain of sand. If we were not trying to be difficult and were all rational honest beings, and we had to choose between:(i) A grain of sand at a beach(ii) An I-Phone ...We would agree that (ii) is generally greater (keep in mind if my opponent tries to argue that perfection is subjective, then the resolution is affirmed by default).. However, this all changes when a category gets brought into it. For example, which is greater for the sand category? Obviously a grain of sand is more perfect and great than an I-Phone in the sand category. The distinction must be made because there is a huge difference. Now, if God exists he is both:(i) The most perfect being (categorically perfect with regards to beings)(ii) The most perfect being (generally perfect with regards to perfection as a whole)If God exists, then categorically he is a perfect being. However we already deduced that if all the parts of the whole of the universe are perfect categorically, and the universe contains beings, then this means that humans are the perfect beings. Obviously God is more perfect/ great of a being than a human. These two beings:(i) A omniscient, Omnipotent, omnibenevolent God(ii) Charles Manson .....Are not on the same level categorically or generally with regards to perfection. This means that the universe actually does contain imperfection if we accept categorical perfection. This means that the theist has to believe that a perfect being maintained reality at a level of 100% perfection, but shifted reality into a state of imperfection. However, we already know that it is self-evident that a perfect being would maintain reality at a level of 100% perfection. This means, that my argument would still seem to stand strong in light of these objections. Also, if there can be something just as perfect generally as God, but non-sentient, then Heaven would fit that description.These two entities:(i) Heaven (Kingdom of God)(ii) A dead, cold, radiation filed vacuum (the universe)...Are not on the same level generally with regards to perfection. This either way you look at it reality is imperfect and incompatible with God (a perfect being). A perfect being would maintain reality at 100% perfection eternally. This is not what we see with regards to the evidence.