The first correction anyone approaching Vedanta needs is that Brahman is not a god. It is not the chief deity of a pantheon, not a supreme person, not a being with a will who decides things. It does not create in the sense of making, does not intervene, does not respond, and is not, strictly speaking, worshipped. Translating the word as God imports a whole apparatus of personhood that the term was constructed to avoid.
What Brahman names is the ground: that which is, on which everything else depends and which depends on nothing. The root brh means to grow or expand, and the word indicates vastness without boundary rather than a being of great size. The classical definition is given in three words, satyam jnanam anantam, reality, consciousness, without limit, and each is a denial of a limit rather than the attribution of a quality. Vedanta insists these are not properties Brahman has, because a property implies a bearer that could be considered separately from it.
The confusion is understandable, because the tradition does also speak of Ishvara, and Ishvara is personal, does act, and is worshipped. The distinction the texts draw is between Brahman considered without attributes and the same reality considered as the ordering principle of a universe, which is a difference in description rather than two entities. The devotional life addresses Ishvara. The enquiry described under neti neti is aimed past every description including that one.
Brahman is a word for what is left when nothing has been added, which is why it does not behave like a god. To see how the same reality is described with and without attributes, explore more of The Living Sanatan Timeline.
Part 9 of 100 — Series I: From the Beginning
Series I: From the BeginningThe Five KoshasIndexFAQThe Timeline