[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe theologians studied this centuries ago. They basically asked, "Does God like something because it is good, or is it good because God likes it?" I believe they concluded that it must be the case that things are good because God likes them, and not the other way around, for otherwise God (whose nature is good) would be limited in what he might like, which wouldn't be possible for an omnipotent God (which they supposed he was).

[/ QUOTE ]
If you accept their answer there, presumably you would accept that he cant be bound by logic either (or he would be limited in what he might do...etc).

I just dont think it means anything to say:

God is good.
What's good?
It's what God is.