What I am saying is that God is the only one who can create anything, but he cannot create another perfect being. Everything that exists only does so because God created and sustains it with his very existence. Our existence is contingent upon his, which means that our contingent existence is analogous with his perfect existence; therefore our existence must be encompassed by his. This can be seen through his omnipresence. God exist at every point in time, in every place in time, all at the same time. He encompasses everything. The logic trap only exists for the one who is trying to prove that there could be more than one perfect being.
I commend you for this, many people try to use this passage to prove the "more than one perfect being stance". I am glad to see that you actually pay attention to the context of the passage. I does indeed mean perfect in love, and that is because of the contextual parameters set within the passage. When we talk about the perfection of God, we set the parameters of perfect using his character, and nature. Perhaps it would be easier to comprehend by stating that the word "perfect" could be removed and replaced with the full meaning of the word "eternal". Eternal does not only mean always was, always is, and always will be; in fact, "eternal," in the fullest sense of the word, encompasses every attribute that God is. This means that omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, immutability, and perfection are all part of what it is to be eternal.
Therefore, the concept that anyone other than God can ever be eternal is just plain false. If something has a beginning, it can never be or become eternal. It can put on immortality, but it cannot become eternal. This is the problem with most Trinitarian doctrines, and also any doctrine that teaches that we will somehow be granted either eternal life or eternal punishment. If we could obtain eternal life, we would become God. But hey, that is the end goal of most humanistic man made doctrines, is it not?
