Public discourse usually assumes that the definition of God is univocal, that there is a standard set concept we all agree on. This is not remotely true, there are various conceptions of the divine. I here want to take a look at two which are dominant.
For many years now, I have rejected traditional theism. I do not believe that the universe is the artifact of a separate and supernatural "person-like" being. I do not believe in the Lawgiver, Judge, and King of popular religion. I think such a being is too easily explained as a psychological projection, is difficult to square with unanswered prayers, and not easily compatible with modern science.
Nevertheless I do believe in God. Fundamentally, I think of God as reality at its ultimate level, "the ground of being," or even reality as a whole - that which is eternal, infinite, and immanent in all things. It seems to me we have good scientific and philosophical reasons to hold that reality is, at its deepest level, absolutely unlimited; that is, eternal and infinite. This corresponds well to the ontological description of God in the western philosophical tradition.
I would furthermore say that reality as a whole, since it is the ground of our being, and source of our life, is the object of our ultimate concern. The knowledge and love of reality at its highest level is our greatest good, inspiring reverence, awe, devotion, and a sense of mystical union. This is, in the western tradition, the existential description of God.
In the following clip Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan explain how one can emphatically reject conventional theism, but maintain a robust belief in God:
Even though my own views are very near Borg's and Crossan's, I am not here writing to defend it, nor to attack the more conventional views. I Merely intend to note that there is more than one understanding of what "God" is.