The problem here is with the idea that a standard of perfection should be unlimited. A perfect square is limited to being a square, but it’s still perfect. The other problem is that the source of all things doesn’t have to be perfect; it just has to be powerful. And the other other problem is that neither the Ahriman nor Ormadz has to be the source of all things, just the source of some things, as long as both of them add up to all.
Those aren’t the same thing either. The source of all things could be at once limited and exactly what it should be. So your conclusion doesn’t follow.
Again, that’s only an assertion, one I see no reason to accept.
Why can’t there be a standard by which to judge a creator’s actions? And if the creator then sins, why would that be a failure? It could be entirely in accord with its nature, if it were indeed a perfect Ahriman.
Don’t see why.
First, why? Second, you forget that neither of these two deities would be the source of all things, only the source of some things, perhaps half each, though the exact balance is unimportant. Nor does the absence of limits require possession of all perfections, as far as I can see.
Well, one is good and the other evil. Which one has the perfection the other lacks, and what is it? We of course prefer the good one, but does that make him more perfect than the evil one? There are a lot of unclear terms and unclear connections being bandied about here.