First: This article is custom-made for Hiram. If you're not Hiram, then you probably won't understand the context of this article.
Second: If you don't know what Pantheism is, then read up on that, first. This article presupposes a mastery-level understanding of Pantheism. This article explains things that are essentially above-and-beyond, or perhaps in some way, aside, Pantheism.
Third: You probably should also fully understand the principles of Unitarian Universalism. While Pantheism answers most of the questions regarding the nature of God, Unitarian Universalism answers most of the questions about how people should be treating each other.
Fourth: This is very deliberately a lot of very esoteric writing. Why? Well, firstly, because Pantheism and Unitarian Universalism handle all the basic stuff already, refined for maximum understanding by people who have spent far more time in that endeavor than I can, to address your specific inquiries. Secondly, this is very esoteric because answering questions that are worded in such a way to trivialize answers to those questions that don't conform to the questioner's personal preference is idiocy. If you're actually interested in my answers to questions like "Who is the God you believe in and how do you know this God?" "Does this God provide any guidance in your life any precepts you should live by?" and "What is genuine faith?" - instead of just looking for some way to disagree with my perspective on these issues - then the explanations below are that which provides the answers you seek. There is no way to dumb it down without losing its essential qualities. I'm not going to package up sound-bite answers to interrogatories rife with presupposition - not to be obtuse, but rather because those kinds of answers to those kinds of questions don't actually give you anything close to an understanding about what you're asking about.
And finally, there is no requirement that everyone come to a complete and comprehensive understanding of God as I understand things. Some folks are beholden to ancient mythologies and like that. They don't want to subject themselves to the idea that theology has to make sense beyond blind adherence to what they were indoctrinated into. In the other direction, I'm not an evangelist. I haven't and won't create advertising copy to try to sell my belief system to others. I'll use it to govern my life and how I interact with others and with society overall, but other folks have done a far better job at packaging something very close to what I believe for more public consumption, and I'm happy enough to leave it to them.
Anyway, give it a go...
God is everything.
No, really - "everything".
The problem with saying that, reading it, and ensuring that the latter matches the intent of the former, is that we tend to view "everything" to mean both more and less than it really means in this context. Perhaps the best approach is to understand, from the outset, that when I say, God is "everything" I mean that God is different from what you think "everything" implies, and the task at hand, here, is to try to reduce that difference. (To be fair, God is different from what I think "everything" implies, too. One of the incontrovertible aspects of this is that understanding God is beyond human capacity - beyond the capacity of anything less than God.)
Let's try another.
Love is God.
Note that I didn't write God is Love.
God is lots of things (to wit: "everything"). One of the things that is God is Love. The fact that I take the time to call it out specifically is important, but it by no means implies that there aren't other things that are as worthwhile to call out specifically in this manner, and also doesn't imply that God isn't lesser things, too.
One thing that makes Love worthwhile calling out in this manner is the fact that rocks cannot Love. There is something about Love that rocks cannot do. That doesn't make rocks "not God". (Remember: God is everything.) However, the fact that rocks cannot Love makes the corresponding equivalency assertion (rocks are God) less important, less worthwhile mentioning, considering and discussing. Any, parallel to that, things like Love are more important, more worthwhile mentioning, considering and discussing.
Truth is God, too.
However, let's be careful. Both Love and Truth actually have two different meanings: For example, Truth is a characteristic of a thought, and Truth is also a true thought. It is the latter that is God. Similarly, the actual Love is that which is God, not the concept of Love. The distinction between Truth as a characteristic and actual Truth, and Love as a concept and actual Love, isn't really important, but for those who resist the pantheistic understanding of God, it may help to understand that no one is claiming that God is simply random thoughts, but rather the point is that God is both the tangible and the ephemeral constituents of everything. That word "constituents" hopefully will make the point clearer. For those comfortable with the idea that God is "spirit" (or perhaps, "Holy Spirit"), there shouldn't be any difficulty in understanding God is/includes something comparable, such as Love and Truth.
Okay let's get a bit more directly to the point. How do we know that this (whatever "this" is) is God? There are several ways to draw together thoughts into rational assertions leading to rational conclusions. One of those ways is to set forth concepts as axioms and see if that leads inextricably to absurd conclusions. If not, then that's as good as proof. The smaller the set of axioms on which the rationale relies, the tighter the assertion is, of course. Here, I'm putting forward three words, and one of those words is darned small (just two letters). If it weren't for the confusion about what the word "everything" means, it would probably be close to the tightest axiom of consequence that could be set forth. Even with the "everything" confusion, it is still the tightest axiom of consequence in the theological space, that I can think of.
To be fair, I kind-of cheated. In mathematics, one of the ways to work out a problem is to work it from "both sides": In this case, one of the tools I'm using to establish the point is the nature of the proof itself. What I mean by that is that the definition of God, itself, includes the provision that God is that which is provable in this manner, i.e., that definition which is spawned by the concept of proof itself. Remember, Truth is God. That really helps, in this regard.
One of the other consequences of this approach is that anything that is based on superstition, myth, legend, ancient predilections, etc., is useless. The ingredients of the answer to What is God? are only those things that people cannot casually dismiss by disbelieving them. Something like God would naturally be a reflection of what all of God (i.e., including every person) would naturally believe as Truth. It may take a little work, sometimes, to show that certain things are true in that manner, so be forewarned.
And be forewarned about one other thing: The reality is that there is no such thing as an absolutely irrefutable answer to What is God? In the end, you can present someone an utterly black color and someone can still reject the assertion that it is black. Operationally, in the context of this point, someone can still reject the assertion that the answer to What is God? is subject to things like Truth and Reason. The rejection of Truth and Reason essentially represents a "different handed path" and that difference of perspective cannot be remedied or even mitigated.
The hope is that these pillars on which this point is built (i.e., a three word axiom, the implication that the lack of absurdity represents proof, the reliance on Truth and Reason instead of cavalierly imposing ancient dogma) are embraced for the vast majority of people, that the few who follow that "different handed path" are of little to no consequence.
The end-result of all this is, to some extent, God "on a diet". You can find this God starting from practically any of the major conceptions of God out there, East or West, make a few minor tweaks to expand the concept of God from some arbitrarily limiting boundaries that other conception of God put in place, and then drop all of the baggage that other conception of God put in place that rely on suspension of disbelief, acceptance of myriad axioms (i.e., more than just the basic "God is everything" axiom).
However, this God "on a diet" is remarkably robust. The reality is that you can build vast arrays of theological infrastructure with very few theological building blocks, when those building blocks are suitably powerful. A good example of this is The Golden Rule. The idea of assessing the goodness of some act by considering how you'd perceive that act if you were on the receiving side of its negative ramifications is something that it seems practically everyone innately understands and resonates with (even though few actively avoid taking actions that they acknowledge they wouldn't want to be on the receiving side of its negative ramifications). And yet, with The Golden Rule, you can build almost 90% of morality necessary.
Now: I can build on this, but actually everything you need to understand is already written there, above. I'll revise and extend as necessary, I suppose, if I see the need. Remember, there is no need to understand, or agree, or in any way approve. I figure only a few people would really understand what I've written - for most of the others, they simply won't see the need to work so hard to understand, and that's okay.