I think there is a difference between imagination and what is actually possible. People can always make up imaginary qualities for a god to define it further beyond the boundaries of knowledge.
Well I think all god’s are imaginary, but you’ve hit the nail on the head. People can imagine those types of qualities which is exactly why relativistic quantum field theory argument can't disprove a god's existence.
No one is putting limits on this god concept. it can be as huge as the imagination can be. However arbitrary or not. Whenever this god thing zips out of time and space, how does it get back in, without invoking time.
Unless of course it's zipping into another place that contains time and space, but that would just make the move (excuse the pun) a waste of time.
How does Yahweh invoke the growth of horns on Moses’ forehead when Moses views his backside? How does Zeus conjure a lightning bolt? How does Kingu’s blood form into human organs? Asking how a deity zips in and out of space/time is a fruitless question like those examples. It’s a supernatural law breaking being. It doesn’t matter if we know how it’s done- these beings just do it (supposedly).
Foxy’s argument that a god can’t exist in t=0 IS putting a limitation on it. What if this unknown being thrives in unstable quantum states? What if the area outside of the universe is an incubation chamber for infantile gods? We couldn’t possibly know. And I think it’s unfair to say we do.
I'll try to explain why I was not putting a limitation on a god, but that science does put a limitation on it and can disprove it.
One way science disproves gods.
Taking an easy example first, imagine that we still believed in many gods about one hundred and fifty years ago, a storm god, a war god, a sun god, an electricity god, a light god and a magnetism god. Then Maxwell comes along and shows that electricity, light and magnetism are really all the same thing. Immediately, the three gods of electricity, light and magnetism are eliminated and replaced by an electromagnetism god with new attributes. No limits were placed on the three gods to prove that they did not exist. It was science which showed that the three gods had no real independent existence. In other words we were just looking at the properties of the three gods the wrong way and assuming that the three gods existed with their properties.
Now back to the god who lives outside of space and time and creates universes. Science has discovered that space, time and existence are not independent properties. Just like the situation with the three gods above, the properties of space, time and existence are not attributes which are taken away from the power of a god. We were just looking at those attributes the wrong way. They never had any independent existence. They were only a product of the human brain looking at the situation in the wrong way and assuming that a god existed with or without these properties.
Why does the human brain interpret the universe in the wrong way? Evolution. We have evolved to survive in a particular situation and our brains make the most convenient assumptions for that situation. Here is an interesting point. Some people who construct abstract properties about their situation see the abstract properties as theoretical, other people see the abstract properties as real in some sense. This last group of people will often imagine a reality which they cannot see in order to visualise these abstractions. We call them religious people. Lukvance is an extreme case of someone who struggles to tell the difference between abstraction and reality, but all religious people do it. Some examples of abstractions which they see as real are; thought (of a god) without a structure or brain, purpose (of a god) without a structure or brain, morality (of a god) as objective without a structure or brain, personality the same, soul the same, space, time, cause, effect, existence.
Since the abstract properties which religious people use to construct alternative realities are taken from daily experience, they are usually easy for science to disprove. This is why the definition of gods natures has had to change as science advances. Science is now at the stage when we can say that creator gods of universes do not exist. That is not to say that religious people can be convinced that their beliefs are false. Beliefs don't depend on facts since they are irrational, but the beliefs can be disproved objectively. The problem is how to convince someone that their irrational belief has been disproved.