Nope, it still is a logical fallacy. This alleged authority figure must present arguments for it's possition, else said figure could be lying. The fact that that supposed being is eternal, created the universe, and has a monster set of knowledge is no reason to belive it anything it says without being presented logical arguments. Like I said, the deity could be lying.

It apparently a bug that also has been eating posts I put up from time to time.  Make sure you do NOT have it appear in HTML format when writing, and looks like the format it should appear in when you reply.  Blank posts I have here are ones that got affected.  I also had the reply window disappear, killing what I wrote to.

You do realize this is a hypothetical case I mentioned, predicated upon what I saying being true.  When doing one of these, why would the subject of what is being written be not what I stated?  The only other area you can say would be worth questioning is the motives and intentions of the being.  If the entity desires to cause pain and suffering, then no, what is discussed as a code of ethics is suspect. However, let's assume this true of the entity:

* The entity created the universe and fully knows how it works, and what will bring about results.

* The entity happens to desire that there not be pain and suffering and desires the best for the creation.

Given these being true, answer me why the creation would be able to come up with a superior ethical system than the entity that created the universe?

Nothing is perfect, and there could certainly be a moral system better than that concieved by the entity.

Your arguments rely too much on a hypothetical ideal situation.

But this discussion is pointless because:

1. There's no evidence that such an entity exists;

2. Your second point (the entity not being evil) may not be true even if the entity exists (and it will most likely still be failable even if it weren't evil).

What makes you so sure of all that then? If god exists why can't he live on a cloud and have a beard?

And it is also concievable that you subconsciously believe in God, but don't know it.  If you want to argue that a theoretical construct is able to be superior at coming up with a system of ethics than a good creator who fully knows that which s/he created, then you need to show what that construct is.  Don't go and say, "It is possible to be concieved", but then you don't show what it is.  You are speculating about a construct that may or may not theoretically exist, that is somehow supposed to be your counterpoint, but it doesn't show up in the discussion.

By the way, prove "Nothing is perfect".  Maybe there is something that is perfect.  We just don't know, just as you don't know if there is anything out there that could produce a superior ethics system to what is considered God by many.

Define perfection. Usually when someone describes perfection there needs to be limits to define the context of perfection e.g. a perfect score in an exam. Just saying something is the perfect being or the perfect moral code/ethics system is still entirely subjective. Defining perfection in the terms discussed here is not possible as it will differ from peron to person (or whatever being/entity we're talking about).

Thus, it is best to NOT say "Nothing is perfect".  One can view perfection as being complete and lacking nothing, or without any flaws or blemishes.

If a person can find a thousand different meanings in a vague statement made by the bible, why do people find it difficult to just leave the slate blank and come up with their own opinion?

I don't understand how I could subconsciously believe in "God"? Are you talking of the result of the indoctrination my parents and the schools in my country tried?

Well "God" is a theoretical construct which may or may not (most likely) exist, so let's say that the theoretical construct capable of coming up with a superior moral/ethical system is "God's creator" (he has to have one after all). Seriously speaking any person with the ability to think could come up with a superior moral/ethical system (not to mention that morals are subjective anyway).

As for me proving that "nothing is perfect", well I've never heard of anything being perfect, have you. No matter how good something is there will always be room for improvement. What do you know of that is perfect (other than made up concepts in your mind)? And the ethical system of Christians is not even close to perfection.