Even gods must bow to the principle of existence. To do anything at all, first you have to exist.
Existence is the English name for Kosmos. Kosmos (κόσμος) is Order per se, the opposite of Khaos (χάος). What is the basic nature of Kosmos, of order? Things are themselves, and things aren't not-themselves. A = A, and A != !A.
The nature of Existence is Logic. The divine λόγος is in fact the superdivine λόγος. To transcend logic is to transcend Existence, which is to say to not exist. To violate the laws of logic means to conquer Existence, to defeat it; in other words, to carry victory for Khaos, and render all things non-Existent once again.
It is matter of pure logic that imperfection is superior to perfection. Calculus, specifically. Anything which can grow indefinitely will, eventually, surpass anything that cannot grow.
Case 1: an imperfect thing is not inherently imperfect. It will either die, or grow to become perfect. It will then stop; you can't grow beyond perfection by definition.
Case 2: an imperfect thing is inherently imperfect. When it reaches the same value as an putative perfect thing, it will then continue to grow, surpassing it while remaining imperfect.
Inherent perfection is inferior to inherent imperfection, QED. Conclusion: the Dao is inherently imperfect.
Background: if perfection can grow (or change at all) it wasn't inherently perfect. By inspection, perfection can't get worse; to change or grow is to get better. If it could get better, it wasn't perfect to start with. Perfection is inherently finite; infinity is inherently imperfect.
P.S. The fact things are themselves is provable by contradiction. Khaos implies Kosmos.
P.P.S Infinity is somewhat complicated by the fact that true infinity is Khaos; Kosmos is never actually infinite, only potentially infinite, as noticed by Aristotle.
P.P.P.S. Materialist naturalists mean [nonexistent] when they they say [supernatural]. "Only natural things exist, gods are beyond the natural, which means beyond the existent." When I say it, I mean the heavens clearly exist in a prior way, and thus are even more natural than the events materialist naturalists will acknowledge. They're clearly begging the question. As long as we understand that the principles of naturalism are not inherently materialist, I am a naturalist.
Speaking of, the very term "materialist" is begging the question. Descartes was right; they mean physicalist; they are specifically denying one kind of material or substance, and using fallacy to do so.
P.P.P.P.S. The full nature of Kosmos is the laws of Logic, plus a boundary condition. The principle of Existence plus a specific example of that principle; some seed thing from which the rest of the Kosmos grows. Some entity whose contradictions define all the things which don't exist. It could have been a perfect entity, but luckily for us, it wasn't. I believe the principle and the concrete is the original prime duality of Existence.