Welcome to the forum, since you didn't bother to say hi you just jumped the gun.
Didn't even need to get to the second line of the 'proof'. The first line assumes a perfect being, the rest of the argument is based on that assumption thus has no value.
This is the problem with trying to prove or disprove a god, I at least have seen no material anything that would suggest there might be a god of any definition so, I can only assume. If I'm making assumptions my argument is pretty much worthless until I can back them up.
Didn't even need to get to the second line of the 'proof'. The first line assumes a perfect being, the rest of the argument is based on that assumption thus has no value.
This is the problem with trying to prove or disprove a god, I at least have seen no material anything that would suggest there might be a god of any definition so, I can only assume. If I'm making assumptions my argument is pretty much worthless until I can back them up.