A Perfect Being Cannot Exist

Rebutting My Opponents Claims"This is where Pro completely misunderstands the idea of God and His creation. He seems to in his own way equate the creation with God, but this simply can't be. Both God and His creation are completely different and separate realities." - TalibA 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. Here is a thought experiment:Lets say there is an "Existence Board" who gives people titles and tickets to "Existent Land", and this board is full of honest and rational beings. Being A and Being B walk up and both beings contradict each other. Therefore, only one of them can receive the title of "perfect" and the ticket to Existent Land. Being A: "I am just as perfect as Being B, except I have created some imperfect things"Being B: "I am just as perfect as Being A, except I have never created anything imperfect"If a board of honest and rational beings were going to give the title and the ticket to a being, who would it be? The answer should be obvious if you are not intentionally being difficult, and that is Being B. Being B would get the title "perfect" and the ticket to Existent Land, and Being A would get banished to Non-Existent Land for eternity. A perfect being does not create that which does not fall in line with 100%, because over a being who did, they would get shot down by the Existence Board every time. This is why we can deduce that if the person is perfect, then so is the creation because we could conceive of a more perfect being; one that did not create imperfection. If we can conceive of a more perfect being, then that being is God...Not the one we were previously thinking of. "Well, no. It would not be, because it is not "shifting" any reality at all, the All-Mighty is "creating" a whole other reality besides Himself." - TalibThe 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. "Wrong, because both God and His creation are both different realities and entities, both of which are perfect." - TalibReality = 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."1. Both God and His creation are separate and different realities2. Both God and His creation are perfect realities. Pro has to show me how the entirely separate reality of creation is imperfect now." - Talib I already showed this is incoherent with regards to my argument. By "reality" I mean "the totality of everything that exists". There cannot be a separate "totality of everything that exist" from another "totality of everything that exists" because they would both be the subset of "the totality of everything that exists". Thus, if God created anything less than generally perfect than himself then what he did was change reality from (i) 100% perfect(ii) Imperfect (anything less than 100% perfect)Since my opponent agrees that a perfect being makes choices 100% in line with perfection, then creating anything less than generally perfect than God, makes him disappear in a puff of logic."Logic would follow that a perfect reality (God) creating a perfect reality (Creation) is logically consistent." - TalibIt is not consistent, as there is an equivocating with the word "perfect". Con is claiming that because the universe is perfect for a universe (categorical perfection), that it is just as perfect as God (general perfection). That is a non-sequitur. This means that what Con is saying is not logically consistent in the slightest because he is committing the fallacy of equivocation." He has defined what perfect is under his own understanding, and that is not acceptable." - TalibMy 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. "If you remove disease, evil and all of the like, you no longer have a test, because everything is good. If you remove disease, evil and all of the like, you no longer have true free will, because it would not be possible for man to be evil, such as the likes of Charles Manson." - TalibThis 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."Everything is dependent upon everything else to exist. If you simply remove from creation just one element, you no longer have the same creation, at all. In fact, remove water, and all life is gone." - TalibIf 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). "P1: God is a perfect reality.P2: Creation is a perfect reality with perfect partsP3: Therefore the perfect reality of God creating a different and separate perfect reality that is creation, with perfect parts, is logically consistent." - TalibP1 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