"The "No Reason" argument states that a perfect god would have no desire to create the universe since the very state of perfection carries with it the implication that one has everything one needs or wants. Thus, the Christian god is the "perfect" victim of this argument."
Drange formed the argument like this
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
This argument is built on an inadequate human understanding of "perfection". As humans, we have no understanding of what it means to be perfect. We have ideas of what perfection ought to look like, but these are merely social constructs. To say that 'one who is perfect does not need' is an implication that cannot be argued for or against. Humans have no understanding of this notion; thus this is an argument built on insufficient premises.
The definitional rebuttal starts with an atheistic assumption to defend theism. The assumption is that the origin of language was via humans and not God. Many theists would state that God created language.
If we cannot understand what perfection is and we assign that property to God, then how can we understand any other property of God. This would make positively inquiring about a god meaningless. If a god would want to be known he would need to instill a proper language with proper understanding in humans.
It would be insanity if God said he was perfect without giving humans a proper understanding of perfection.