Anti-Ontological Argument
Premise 1: God is a perfect being
Premise 2: A perfect being would be perfectly expressed
Premise 3: Creation is an act of expression
Conclusion: God would not create the universe because he would have already been perfectly expressed
Premise 2 does not follow logically from premise 1. Why would a perfect being have to be expressed perfectly? Couldn't a perfect being choose to express him imperfectly? If I were a "perfect" architect/builder, I might for a number of reasons (finances, scarcity of materials, etc.) choose to build "imperfect" houses.
I don't understand how you arrive at your concclusion from the argument preceding it. Why would God have "already been perfectly expressed"? He could choose to express himself whenever/however (perfectly or imperfectly) he wanted.
Anti-Interaction Argument
Premise 1: God is unchanging
Premise 2: The universe is always changing
Premise 3: Interaction is a form of change
Conclusion: God cannot interact with the universe without changing
This argument is meaningless without a strict defintion of "change".
Suppose I design and build a swimming pool. I interact with the pool by jumping into it and swimming. I'm causing changes in the pool (movements of water molecules, heating water due to my body heat, etc.), and I'm changing in the sense that my position in space is changing, my body temperature is lowering (loss of heat to water), etc. However, I'm not necessarily changing in my personality, abilities, goals etc.
So one could argue that God changes when he interacts with the universe in that his positiion (whatever that might mean to a spirit) changes, his mood (anger, sorrow, etc.) changes, but his basic qualities and purposes don't change.
Again, in an argument like the one above, questionable/gray/fuzzy terms like "change" have to be strictly defined.
