Piasan I will just address the point of debate for now then. You think the issue of perfection is simple. It isn't though, because a lot of the time what we think is perfect may not be.
God didn't create the creation, "perfect" from our perspective BUT, this only presents a new question; "what then would be perfect?" From a limited, human perspective, this may mean such things as this;
1. No possibility of injury.
2. No disease.
3. No possibility of sin entering in.
But now let's imagine that when the universe is all wrapped up, and God's kingdom has come, and we all know what Christ went through, and we all have learnt lessons we could never have learnt in a, "perfect" world, then would it be, "perfect" if we end up as empty shells, spoilt robots that can't even appreciate a sinless system, because we don't even know what one is.
From a human perspective, this may be, "perfect", but from God's perspective, creating a system He knew would make it possible to introduce sin, and He knew would lead to the cross, is His perfect will.
So it's not simple because from God's perspective, it is perfect if everything happens OVERALL, as He intended, and all of the good purposes He purposed and wanted more than a world of robots, will now come to pass.
In other words, God can make a new heavens and earth which will be perfect, but from His perspective, He has been creating perfect worlds in the trillions for eternity. For Him to create our version of a perfect world, is something He has done one billion trillion times before.
So the issue of perfection is not a simple matter. We also have to consider that perfection is a relative term. Some people will say, "this woman is perfect" whereas others may say, "no, greed isn't perfect", but from that person's view, because of their personality, they may think greed is part of perfection.
There are also pedantic imperfections. Example; "a ferrari can't fly, so it's not perfect design". Or my favourite; "the vertebrate eye is wired backwards so isn't perfect design". (my favourite because that's the silliest old canard argument that plays right into my hands, because I have a full answer as to why in fact it is correctly designed.)
Another one is "my eyes can't do three somersaults while I stand on one toe." That's when atheists become really dumb - when they tell you to look at a black dot on a page, whistle three times, close your eyes then open them and try and see the dot.
Believe it or not they do ask you to do things like that, just so they can "prove" the eye isn't designed right.
In other words, they try to get you to do something with your eyes, you would never do with your eyes in a lifetime, but that they have invented so they can say the eye is imperfect.
Question; where does the silliness end?