This would be a different argument though. You aren't moving goalposts are you?
I get what you are thinking and to an extent I think you are right.
Let me explain what I mean.
You and I agree that the world is far from what we would consider perfect. The nature of the Bible as a divine work has been disputed for centuries. Evil, suffering, pain, and disease exist and are real. If we agree these things are real, then whatever worldview we hold, it must at minimum, deal with these issues head-on, without denying their reality.
These observations would lead some to conclude that this world is not the best possible world, i.e. that there is a conceivable world wherein God's word is not disputed, there is no evil, no pain, and no disease, etc. etc. and that this world is not it.
Some would argue that if God existed and He decided to create a world, He would have to have created the best possible world and since this obviously is not the best possible world, then this means that God did not create it, and that this spells doom for the Christian, such as myself, for I maintain God did create the world.
We see this train of thought in the proposition you provided, namely the proposition,
A flawed creation cannot logically come from a perfect creator god.
If this is true, then I am in big trouble, for I as a Christian, maintain that God is perfect and creator of the actual world.
Am I as much trouble as it would seem I am?
No. For the assumption underlying the argument is that being perfect entails being able to actualize a world wherein significantly free moral agents never commit evil, never dispute God's revelation, never inflict pain upon one another, and never bring about any state of affairs that could be properly labeled defective i.e. a departure from that perfect will of a perfect creator God.
You see, both you and I observe on a daily basis, events and particular states of affairs which support the hypothesis that human beings are free moral agents. The degree to which we are free may indeed be the subject of much debate, but that we are in some morally significant sense, free, is something our observations would seem to support. We maintain, and observe those around us maintaining that people in general, regardless of ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, beliefs etc., are culpable, moral agents with the capacity for making moral judgments and in virtue of this are either deserving of being praised for the exercise of virtue, or reprimanded for the exercise of vice.
Whatever worldview we hold, therefore must at minimum, also deal with this notion of moral culpability head-on and not deny its reality.
This raises the question, namely: could God actualize a world wherein as much or more good is achieved than is achieved in this world with as many or more free moral agents as is in this actual world? It may very well be that in every world God would actualize wherein free moral agents exist, that there are humans in said worlds who freely choose to do evil, or dispute God's revelation to mankind, or maliciously inflict pain upon each other etc.
Perfection does not entail being able to force someone to do something freely anymore than it entails being able to make a married bachelor or a round square.
So when I maintain that God is all-powerful, or all-knowing, or all-loving, these superlative attributes are intended to describe God as a maximally great being or a perfect being. Not a being who can do the logically impossible.
As a Christian, I of course hold that there is a lot God cannot do.
From these observations, Christianity is a worldview which attempts to account for the existence of evil and suffering and pain, in addition to our observations that human beings are in some morally significant way, free. When compared with competing worldviews, Christianity at minimum lends itself to sincere and thoughtful consideration.
