I will make a very large assumption in the following discussion. That is that your referencing God, means you are referencing an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, transcendent God of the the Bible. If yours is a pantheistic god, these comments will be meaningless to you.
You say you know nothing about the mind of God and and that you are commanded to love HiM.
It is sometimes said that faith an reason are hostile to each other, and whatever is of reason cannot be of faith. This misstates the Biblical concept of faith. The Biblical notion of faith includes three components: notitia (understanding the content of the Christian faith, fiducia (trust), and assensus the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition. Trust is based upon understanding, knowledge (warranted true belief), and the intellects assent to the truth. Belief in something rests in the belief that something. Faith is not a blind, irrational leap into the dark. Faith and reason cooperate on Biblical views of faith and are therefore not hostile to one another. Col. 2:8 says, "See to it that no one take you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." This is not an exortation to avoid philosophical examiniation of the Truth, but exhorts one to avoid "hollow and deceptive philosophy". I Peter 3:15, says, "But santify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give and answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is within you,..". Romans 1:18 and following, states that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrightousness because that which is know of God is manifest in them; for God has shown it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
Darwin, in his book Origins,said, "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the conviction of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" It is a good question. Alvin Plantinga postulated that knowledge is warranted true belief and a belief has warrant for some person just in case ("just in case" means, "if and only if") that belief was formed by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly and in accordance with a good design plan in a congitive environment appropriate for the aim of those cognitive faculties when the design plan is aimed at obtaining truth. The important point is that question, "are our cognitive faculties functioning the way the ought to function. Since proper function is normative (the way the ought) proper function cannot be understood as a mere description of the statistacally usual or normal way that human faculties do function. There is a difference between normative function and statistacally proper function. Therefore the notion of proper function, understood as functioning the way something ought to function, makes sense for artifacts that are designed by intelligence. This is because the claim that something functions the way it ought is easily unerstood in terms of functioning the way it was designed to function. An engine function properly when it functions the way it was designed to function. If, therefore, knowledge presupposes warranted true belief, and if warranted true belief presupposes that those beliefs were produced by properly functioning faculties, and if the notion of proper function requiring the proper design, then knowledge (warrated true belief) presupposes a designer.
"If I knew God I'd be Him" is a statement of Immanuel Kant. Only the noumina can be known by your senses and the thing in itself, so Kant's proposition preclues one from knowing anything else other than self. The problem with Kant's theory is that his theory violates the Law of Noncontradiction. How can Kant know his theory if he is not the theory itself.
You are correct in saying you are not God. But you can know much about the nature of God. He has revealed Himself in the creation, in the conscious of every man, so that they are without excuse of knowing Him, in the revelation of Jesus Christ, in the Moral Law, in the Cosmological argument, Kaalams arguement, the Teleological argument, the Transendental Proof of God, and in many other ways.
Again, regarding your declaration that abstract constructs issue from the mind of man....you can say it, but if man is only the sum of creatio ex materia, you will need to account for the molecular construction of the soul, mind, spirit, love, mercy, justice, logic, rational thought (or any thought), the self-awareness (you are part of this universe and are self-aware) of the universe coming forth from the unconscious elemental makeup of the universe or deny it exists, rational thought, theory of evolution, and any other abstract concept which you say is the product of the universe and not supranatural. What do each of these "things" weigh? Kant denied their existence because he could not 'be' mercy, or love , or justice, just as you say "If I knew Him I'd be Him".
Your remarks of Him being unlovable, I will leave at this point. I have written too much.
Though America could not have been founded without Christianity, I do not believe Jesus was divine. He was a fine, though imperfect (-as are we all-) Pharisaic rabbi whose image however, may well have been utilized by God to that former end.
“If I knew God I’d be Him”, was rather stated by Rabbi Joseph Albo, 15th century.
I guess it makes for less of an assumption that I follow Torah and science, both passionately.