God and Good

After reading my mock epic, The Chelsiad, a friend commented that while I presented the view "God is God because God is Good", she thinks that the truer view is "God is Good because God is God." Surely, there is a very subtle difference between the statements, and it took me about an hour of meditation (before my sleep) before I really figured out what is going on. (Or at least I hope I understand what's going on; I now apologize for whatever misinterpretation I am going to give.)

"God is God because God is Good" means that God is who he is because he has the property of Goodness. Goodness defines God. God is a "thing", and "Good" is a property attached to this "thing".

"God is Good because God is God", on the other hand, means that whatever God does He is Good. If God does not do Good, He would not be God. Goodness, then, is defined by God. This means that God is what he does, which is Good.

The problem with the latter statement is that it is a fallacy. "God is God" in itself is a meaningless statement, since it is a tautology, just like "apple is apple". It does not offer any definition or identity. "God is Good", on the other hand, is a definition. Hence, in the first case, saying a definition causes an identity is fine; Goodness makes something God, and hence if you don't have Goodness, you cannot be God. But in the latter case, using an empty tautology to cause a definition is a fallacy. "God is God" cannot logically and possibly cause the proposition "God is Good" unless you have already defined God is Good, which makes the latter statement circular.

Put the two statements this way, and we will see the difference:
1. Because God is Good, therefore God is God.
2. Because God is God, therefore God is Good.

Or

1. Because apple is sweet, therefore apple is apple.
2. Because apple is apple, therefore apple is sweet.

Clearly, the second instance does not really work.