Looking for any weaknesses in my arguments. I put them together not to show that the conclusions are true but rather to prove that the first premise in each of them (used by religious people) is incoherent with the rest of their beliefs. Please feel free to point out what you think works or doesn't work and why. Thanks :)
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
.
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