The point here is we can have relative perfection but these are conditioned to the criteria set and agreed by a group of people.
But suppose someone argues that, on the contrary, a truly perfect game would consist of a pitcher striking out [on three pitches] every single batter that he faced over nine innings.
The above is not an impossibility albeit odds are very very slim. The point this is nevertheless a relative perfection when agreed by a group of people but set with more higher standard.
The critical point here is the understanding of the difference between ‘absolute perfection’ [applicable only for God] versus ‘relative perfection’.
Re the highlighted above: But how on earth would we even begin to establish that which constitutes perfection in God?
The grounds of an idealized God is psychological and crude primal reason and cannot be a natural thing. Theists will claim God is a natural thing. If natural, then prove it naturally and this is not possible, i.e. impossible.
Here, of course, we are back to the gap between what you think about the existence of God, and all that you would need to know for certain about Existence itself in order to know what this entails. Only when that is resolved by mere mortals can we begin [realistically] to speak of any possible relationship between God and perfection.
Or so it seems to me. Recognizing that “I” too am no less the embodiment of this gap.
How then do you not recognize that this is applicable to you as well?
I would imagine that any number of folks are exasperated by my approach to all of this because basically I am suggesting that while it is often fascinating/engrossing to speculate about these things, we will all no doubt go to the grave still the embodiment of this gap. We might think we know, but what are the odds that we actually do?
And, even if we do know, what are the odds that we will be around to savor it?
I agree an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God seem reasonable and possible but only within thought and definitely not within an empirical-rational reality.
I believe you are setting up an impossible ultimate limit, i.e.
… ALL that you would need to know for certain about Existence itself in order to know what this entails …
This is an expectation that can only be achieved by an omniscient God [if exists].
In this case, you will not be above to resolve your problem because of wrong view and wrong thought. [note the Generic 4NT-8FP problem solving technique highlighted the Dassein thread].
Note I mentioned Russell’s there is no definite answers in philosophy, thus to expect ALL you need to know with certainty is rather a moot point.
Even if one think they have ALL the answers, there is not such thing a “certain” answers to any question - note Wittgenstein’s ‘On Certainty’.
I believe it is a mistake to establish an ultimate limit to knowledge and create a GAP out of the difference between the known and the unknown [which is an empirical impossibility] in this particular case. [acceptable perhaps for consideration of morality].
Therefore the way you are setting up the problem will lead you into a wild goose chase.
Effectively we should always ground our problems on the known and extend outward into the possible unknown, not the impossible unknown as you have done. This is what the Buddha meant by one creating their own dukkha [problem].
This is also how Science proceeds to gain knowledge grounded on its Scientific Framework [with processes, assumptions, etc.]
I believe if you do a paradigm-shift to such a paradigm you would probably gain more equanimity, comfort and ease in facing whatever the problem.
This is what the Buddha did, i.e. shifted in a 180 degree paradigm shift from relying on an external God for salvation to inward within the self to resolve the existential dilemma.
Agreeing or not agreeing with what you think isn’t the point from my frame of mind. Instead, the point revolves around your capacity to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to agree. Here and now in other words, and not in some distant future where folks like you and I surmise that we will not even be around anyway!
To either confirm your prognostications or to experience a world in which they prevail.
Note your ALL and ‘obligated’ again which set an ultimate limit.
In this case, the target is the majority or a critical mass not ALL [100%].
Note the principles of the Bell Curve, human variables will always be widely distributed, i.e. we cannot expect ALL humans to be 6 feet tall, or 80 kilo in weight.