The mistake that's commonly made is assuming that god has to fit into an already existing theology. Three things are attributed to god. Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. The first question is whether a being with those three characteristics exists. Then there's the question of whether it would subscribe to an already existing religious system. Based on infinite recursion, at some point in the creation of the universe, something has to have come from nothing. No known physical laws allow for that, and in fact it violates conservation of mass. That could be due to the limitations of human knowledge(less likely on account of contradicting an existing law), or it could imply the existence of a being with such power. The power to create from void is essentially omnipotence, and I believe that to be a decent argument for the existence of a creator for our reality. Infinite recursion still implies that a creator needs to have it's own creator, but that can go on forever. It's not something that can constructively be discussed(like Descartes' radical doubt). Next, omniscience. Assuming that you have an omnipotent being, the amount of knowledge required to create a universe as self maintaining as this one would be astronomical. The possession of that knowledge, which I consider near omniscience, if not omniscience itself, is implied. It also implies a mental capacity to process all of that information at once, during creation. So we have a being that is all powerful, all knowing, or nearly all knowing, and all processing. Also implied here is even more power, because with those attributes, such a being could use the butterfly effect to set in motion a chain of controlled events that would happen over eons. Thus, with those assumptions, everything is controlled.
Next is all good, and here is where you hit a logical wall. The only argument that can be made for god's morality is Utilitarianism, and proving that everything that has ever happened is to maximize the overall good for humanity is impossible without being omniscient oneself. It's impossible to know if god is actually perfectly moral. It could be that it's just messing with us, or views us as entertainment. What you believe in that regard, you take on faith.
This is where it starts to get complicated, because every different religion has a different interpretation of what "all good" means. Is what the christians say god wants true? Who knows, it was written down by a man. There's no proof of it's veracity. Same with every other holy text(though judaism's prophecies are uncannily accurate). Even if you've reasoned the existence of god, and decided to have faith in it's morality, that doesn't tell you how to act unless you decide a system is right. There is only one thing that you can extrapolate from the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god, and that is that every living being has a purpose, like a cog in a great machine. Otherwise a benevolent god wouldn't have caused you to exist. That's about all that I can reasonably say with intellectual honesty. There's too many inconsistencies in most religions for me to really say anything in favor of most of them. You can make your own deductions from there.
