I've listed answers to your question from a purely rational perspective
1. Presuming an objective version of "God" exists, this question will lead to infinite regress. If God was created, then you'll have to ask, "Who created the being who created God". If the being who created God was also created, then you'll have to ask, "Who created the being who created the being who created God", and to infinity. The only solution is there must exist "something" that was never brought into existence (i.e. a being that exists beyond the limitations of time)
But would "something" with timeless existence and the ability to create, be "God" by definition? That's unclear, because timeless existence and the ability to create do not seem to automatically translate to deity status. For example, there's no proof an abstract being cannot exist beyond the limitations of time. Also there's no proof an abstract being cannot have the ability to create, because an abstract being doesn't necessarily have to be conceived before it exists. Does that necessarily cause the abstract being to become "God"?
Ideally, all of the attributes that define "God" aren't essential to every kind of abstract being. Otherwise all forms of abstract being would be "God". Unless the only attributes of "God" are timelessness and the ability to create, "something" that exists beyond limitations in time and has the ability to create, would not necessarily be "God", because it may rather be an abstract being that isn't exactly "God"
Basically there are only three possible solutions:
(a) If "God" exists, they were never created
(b) "something" that exists beyond the limitations of time and isn't exactly "God", may have created "God"
(c) "something" that exists beyond the limitations of time and isn't exactly "God", may have created something else that eventually created "God"
2. It's unclear whether there's an impartial standard for "good" and "evil". If I had to guess, I'd say morals are mental constructs which serve the primary function to rationalize human ideals
But if by "evil" you are inferring conditions that seem to correspond with misery, poverty and enmity in humans, there's a list of possible answers to this question:
(a) God is a sadist and finds pleasure in causing or watching others suffer. This solution infers that "God" doesn't have to be omnibenevolent
(b) God is carrying out a test / experiment to collect information, and the occurence of "evil" is imperative to achieve a certain objective of this test / experiment. This solution infers that "God" doesn't have to be omniscient, because "God" would have no rational motive to carry out the test / experiment if they already know all the outcomes for it
(c) It is somehow beyond the abilities of "God" to stop or prevent "evil" from happening. This solution infers that "God" doesn't have to be omnipotent
3. Assuming "God" is actually testing people, I don't have an answer to this question. But it was stated in my response to the second question that "God" would have no rational motive to "test humanity" if "God" is really omniscient. TBH I'm neither theist nor atheist. From my POV there is no meaningful test, only suffering and coping
4. Who said "God" had expectations? A book for toddlers and preschoolers? A bunch of bluepillers? Maybe "God" doesn't have any expectations of you
5. How do you know if "God" has ever told you to do anything? I've already addressed the vagueness of divinity in response to the first question
6. If "God" translates to one and only one divine entity, it clearly means at least one of the theistic religions of humankind has a flawed interpretation of "God". It just wouldn't be clear which theistic religion is flawed, because there's no direct evidence to prove that any theistic religion does not identify the correct "God" as the center of their religion
