Yes you do get points for pointing out flaws in logic which reinfoces the point that it is useless ;)
What I do find amusing though is this.
There is no proof of God.
But if there is a book about God and it does not fit my criteria of perfection, it must be fake.
Anyone who tells me that the book is what it claims must be stupid, delusional, or have no knowledge of the facts.
If I were to say the above, I could disprove anything too.
Exactly what is the criteria for being perfect? How do you determine this as an imperfect being? I mean is there a test that someone takes or is it something that a person is born with?
The fact is that not everyone basis for perfection is the same. Take my belief about the Bible.
The Bible says that it is inspired of God but it does not say HOW it is inspired of God. Tell me where the in the Bible does the word infallible appear? Where does it say that this is the criteria in which to measure it?
The fact is that nowhere does the Bible say that it is infallible. That is something that people assume. What the Bible DOES say is that there are a great cloud of witnesses that confirm over and over again and again of how these events took place (Hebrews Chapter 12). As a result, I look at the Bible as a newspaper that reported the events (good and bad) in which almost every event is confirmed by at least one other separate person in the Bible. Jeremiah confirms Isaiah. Ezra confirms Jeremiah. Jesus is confirmed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who are confirmed by others in the letters. The existence of Moses is confirmed by Joshua who is confirmed by several others in the Bible. No other religious book neither the Koran nor the Book of Mormon has this amount of interlinking testimony.
But none of this requires the Bible to be perfect. Nor does the Bible itself say this. That again is something that people assume and you know what happens when people assume
It makes an ASS out of U and ME. ;)