Wild - since you asked me to provide my understanding, I will attempt to do so:
God is a word. But God is also something far from a word.
As you know, words are used interpersonally, to communicate and share with other human beings.
God is a useful word, if we both understand what is meant by it. But if one of us fails to understand the word, then one of us obviously shouldn't use it.
Is it me, or is it you? This is a question I sincerely ask you. I'm not trying to be a smart-ass - though I suspect that you think I am nothing but.
God signifies something that is beyond words. That's why God can neither be defined, nor redefined. If God was indeed subject to such wordgames, that would mean that he was in our power to use as we saw fit. But this notion goes against everything that God as a matter of fact is.
You can experience God, if you truly seek it. But this implies suspending your own ideas about what he/it is supposed to be - and by extension, suspending your own ideas about, how I am using the word. For I do not use it as you seem to think I do. I do not 'define it', as you say.
Just because you seek a definition doesn't mean that I do. In fact, I'm trying to say just the opposite of how you seem to read my words: I do not claim to 'understand' God - so how could I ever promote my own understanding of him? I would be promoting something, that didn't exist, and that I knew to be non-existent.
Crow knows what I am talking about. And I know what crow is talking about. We don't always use the same words to describe it, but we both know that this doesn't matter.
Sure, God is 'nothing but' reality. But then again reality is 'nothing but' God.
If you see reality as a 'nothing but...' then I suggest you take a deeper look. If you are sincere, then you won't be disappointed.