If, when we say that God is good, we really mean it in the circumscribed sense of the word, we would thereby imply that God could be better also--in which case God would no longer be God, being a changeable being, an improvable being. It was Spinoza's defect that he failed to perceive that the ultimate principle baffles such positive description and transcends such nameable attributes as "good." He fell into it through allowing his overly mathematical intellect to unduly tip the balance against his mystical intuition. His God had different qualities, even though their number was infinite. This made it a limited God. There is no way of describing the mysterious principle behind all existence that will be a correct way. Words drawn from the language of finite human creatures are inapplicable to the infinite principle that transcends those creatures. If we do use them here, it is only for the sake of literary convenience and with a presupposed understanding of their relativity, not for their literalness.
-- Notebooks Category 27: World-Mind > Chapter 1: What Is God? > # 27