A Perfect Being Cannot Exist

Rebutting My Opponent's Claims"God did create perfection. He did not create imperfection." - TalibCon has not backed up the above with anything. Thus, I am calling Con out on a bare-assertion fallacy. Regardless, if reality and its parts are perfect, then the beings inside the universe are perfect. If the beings inside the universe are perfect, then the beings inside are perfect beings (Gods by definition). This means that Charles Manson is God if the theist goes this route. It is absolutely fatal, and I am shocked that Con has not caught on to this."Therefore this is logically consistent. God is perfect, and God created a perfect creation." - TalibIt is not logically consistent, as Con is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The universe may be perfect for a universe, but it isn't perfect in general to God. Thus, the creation of the universe would still be taking reality as a whole from a state of 100% perfection to imperfection. This would be incompatible with a perfect being. A grain of sand may be perfect for a grain of sand, but a human being is generally greater. Since my opponent is equivocating and not specifying which "perfect" he is talking about, the above from Con is trivial at best."No, equating the creation with God is logically incoherent, and that is not who the Abrahamic God is." - TalibIf God exists, he is part of the same "totality of existence" as everybody else. He is just the same as his creation in that aspect. You cannot have duplicates of a "totality of existence". This is what I mean by "reality". To stop the confusion, instead of: God shifted "reality" from "x" to "x"I will say..God shifted "the state of the totality of existence" from "x" to x"Hopefully, this will stop Con from equivocating again. "God and His creation are two different realities, two different things." - TalibHowever they are part of the same totality of existence. If a perfect being makes choices consistent with 100% perfection, then he would not do something which would change the state of the totality of existence from:(i) 100% perfectionto (ii) Imperfection (less than 100% perfect)This would necessarily be the case if he brought anything into existence less perfect in any way than him. The universe and Charles Mansion are not as generally perfect as God. Either way my opponent fails. Therefore, we live in a state of the totality of existence which is not 100% perfect. This means a perfect being cannot exist. If a perfect being makes choices consistent with 100% perfection, then a perfect being would not choose to shift the state of the totality of existence from his previous "God only" state of totality of existence which contained 100% perfection, to now. This means that the resolution has been affirmed off of this alone."You are also implying that this dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space is not perfect. I say it is a perfect reality." - TalibThis means that the universe is no less perfect generally than God. This is like saying a grain of sand is no less perfect generally to a human being. This is completely counter intuitive. To stomp on our intuitions which lead to conclusions on greatness and perfection in this sense, is to stomp on Anselmian Perfect Being Theology as a whole! Thus, this would be self-refuting. Therefore, my opponent must say that the universe is not generally perfect, but categorically perfect for a universe (and that everthing within the universe is perfect for what it is). This is fatal I have said before, as beings exist within the universe. Thus, if we are perfect then we are perfect beings, and thus Gods. Therefore, this view of perfection cannot be held in context of the debate. My opponent either must:(i) Accept that my argument is sound.(ii) Claim that the universe and its parts are just as perfect as God generally (which would be to destroy the intuitions Perfect Being Theology depends upon).(iii) Claim that the universe and its parts are perfect categorically (which would destroy theism, as this leads to the conclusion that Charles Mansion is a perfect being).Either way, Con has no feasible escape route here. "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." - TalibYou can equate created with creator; as persons are but a reflections of their choices. Regardless, this is not the point. If God exists then he exists in the same totality of existence as I. Therefore, I can equate myself with God in that aspect. If he did anything which lead to less perfection than possible, then he would not make it past the "Existence Board" against a being I posit. A perfect being who makes choices consistent with 100% perfection is more perfect than a being who does not. If only God existed, then the state of the totality of existence would be that of 100% and no flaws. A perfect being would keep it this way. A perfect being would not break perfect symmetry to lead to the chaos we call The Big Bang and taint the state of the totality of existence with imperfection like bacteria. To say bacteria is perfect is to say it is no less great than God in general. This is absurd as obviously God would be more perfect and great than bacteria. Con has backed himself into a corner I do not think he will be able to escape."It is not only perfect "for a universe," it is perfect period." - TalibThen this means that the universes inhabitants are perfect as well (Con admitted that a completely perfect whole has perfect parts). This means that Charles Manson is God. Your argument only works if Charles Manson is God by definition, along with Kim Kardashian. Does Con really want to go this route? I cannot see why he would. If everything is perfect besides God, and Flava Flav is a being, then he is a perfect being. Flava Flav is God according to Con.....Yeeaaaaa Boi!"You are confusing personal standards and understandings with the creation and its Creator." - TalibFalse. Con is confusing personal standards with logical necessity and that which is self-evident.Being A: Perfect, but lead to "x" imperfectionBeing B: Perfect, but lead to only perfectionYour argument would amount to saying that it is just my "personal belief" that Being B would be the perfect being over Being A if we can only choose one. This is looking at all wrong. Being B is self-evidently the more perfect being because his existence involves more perfection, it has nothing to do with anything subjective. These truths are objectively self-evident."Not really. You have clearly stated that the universe is not perfect because people like Charles Manson are not perfect." - TalibNow you are catching on. To state otherwise would be to say Charles Manson is God. This is fatal to your position. Therefore, you have to admit the universe contains imperfection. This is fatal to your position as well, because you admitted that a perfect being who makes choices only makes choices consistent with 100% perfection. If God made a choice that lead to Charles Manson, then he is not perfect as he clearly shifted the state of the totality from God only (100% perfection) to God + Charles Manson (less than 100% perfection)."If you say it is not perfect because of Charles Manson, and I say the opposite, what then?|" - TalibYou lose either way lol If go with my argument that the universe as a whole and its parts are imperfect, then the resolution is affirmed because you conceded that a perfect being makes choices only 100% consistent with complete perfection. Lets say we go with your argument that the universe and its parts are perfect; this means that because the "beings" in it are ""part" of the universe; we are "perfect". This means that Kim Kardashian is a perfect being. You either have to admit: (i) God Does Not Exist(ii) Kim Kardashian is God. My opponent has no options left... The resolution has been affirmed; as my opponent has no feasible escape route other than admitting Kim Kardashian is God.