This notion of perfection is often used to prove god exists. Aquinas employs it in his proofs. It would be stretching credibility even to say it suggests there might be a god – but to say it proves it is ridiculous.
The whole notion of perfection in anything is simply that – a notion. It’s a vague notion of direction or improvement: “this is good”, “this is better”, “keep improving until you get to perfection”, which of course we recognise we can’t achieve – therefore jump to the conclusion that the only entity that can we call God, and so god exists. Nonsense.
If perfection doesn’t exists (that is, there is nothing that is perfect in any practical sense), and there’s no reason to suspect it does, then it cannot be used to conclude God exists. And even if perfection was a reality, and if we chose to call it God, there is no reason to attribute all the usual properties to god that make him the personal god that religions promote.