This sounds very much like Platos Republic, book 1, where Socrates basically attempts the same arguement in the guise of "Justice" but in fact his "opponent" appears to be of a synthetic theocracist (the Church). Part of the problem lies in the fact that the arguement is divisive because that is the logical style, where as God maintains everything within a unity. It's not possible to define infinity using instruments (the mind) that are finite. Using reason, you can create a reasonable arguement, but God is found well beyond reason. It could be described as an optical illusion of the mind. A clever delusion.

The saying, "divide and conquer" is appropriate here. It you take a unity and break it down into pieces you can reasonably reject each piece, however, you cannot reject the totality of the unity because it is beyond the realm of reason.

If you are the most reasonable person in the room, who will argure with you. In the same sense, if you are a skilled bread maker and the topic is cake baking, but you can establish the rules of "cake baking" as actually being the rules of bread making, you have a distinct advantage. But you have also mislead everyone in the room.

It would be interesting to apply this to Raymond Smullyan - Knights and Knaves, as well as his other works, "Forever Undecided"

I can't really respond to you too well, as I don't know much philosophy. I haven't read any Plato. But is my argument sound?

Nor do I except for what I have read and understood, but I have an exceptional teacher, life. So I my view the entire concept is a massive deception and cannot be answered truthfully. It would be worth reading the first book of Platos republic its not very long and easily read in less than a day. But keep in mind, "he who holds the pen, writes the history" and "the pen is mightier than the sword". Plato wrote the Republic, but didnt feature in it, instead he claimed it was Socrates he was narrating on behalf of (abdicating responsibilty) and consider careful how at the beginning he creates a frame of reference and also admits there was a "small deception" in the logic in the preamble. The written language is incapable of answering the question, much like...

Its nice to be important, but its more important to be nice.
Its right to be wrong, its wrong to be right.
Its good to be bad, its bad to be good.

All examples why logic cannot answer the question because of its inadequacy (its only one side of the coin and therefore cannot describe the entire coin)

I am starting to consider that neither good nor bad, right nor wrong exist unless they have already broken out of unity. Within unity, neither exist because one is so perfectly balanced by the other. In that must lie the truth of God and from this frame of reference only can the question be answered.

I've just had another thought. If you attempt to describe that which is perfect and within the description you use anything, even one thing, that is not perfect then the entire thing can no longer be perfect because it contains a contaminant (that which is not perfect). For instance, if you had pure white paint, if you introduce even the slightest colour of non white, it can no longer be pure white, even if it has the appearance of being so. So that which is perfect must simply be that with absolutely no contaminant, Good = NOT bad, as a poor example.

It goes like this: if god is good and thus incapable of issuing a wrong command, and what he approves of is defined as good, what results is the meaningless statement that god approves of god. — Aleph Numbers

It is not meaningless if god is to approve of OTHERS' commands.

If you assume god is the entire creation, then you are right. But still, the result is not meaningless, but meaningless only if tautologies are meaningless. I don't think tautologies are meaningless, they are only obvious. And obvious obviously has a place in the world and in our thinking. If there was nothing obvious, then communication, for instance, could not happen. Communication needs both obvious and non-obvious elements.

I agree, it couldn't possibly be meaningless, I would reframe the statement to, God is ... If we accept growth in nature as the obvious workings of a creator, i.e. structure, then the content will always be in context of such. For instance, the sun shines and grows the weeds as well as the vine. There is no dvision of what should or shouldnt receive the sunshine. This has been proposed as the basis of unconditional love, regardless, it is made available to everything, such is pure love.

I would also be tempted to go further, if God is infinite and you divide infinity, then you have two aspects of infinity, albeit one if really framed by the other. In this context God most certainly would approve of God and instead of being meaningless it now has both meaning and can be evidenced in the law of nature via growth. As Jesus put it, "i am in you, you are in me, and I am in the Father".