Now you refer again to the mental gymnastics required to posit something outside the only world we know exists. Once you claim this is a legitimate area anything is possible and you cannot refute my claim that little fairies exist in the space under my desk but they have no form that we as humans can understand. Seriously, what is quite frustrating is that people claim one thing about god (that its existence does not violate what we know scientifically) and then immediately want to take the discussion outside the bounds of scientific inquiry and into philosophy or metaphysics. I won't argue religious philosophy and/or metaphysics because it's a waste of time. They also want no workable definition of god so that it becomes a chimera that can fit into whatever space is required. Sophisticated theists are very good at the mental gymnastics I have mentioned already. As the existence of a god becomes more and more untenable against what we know scientifically theists are forced to become more "sophisticated". This is not necessarily a function of their gods complexity but rather peoples complex (sophisticated) attempts to keep alive an untenable idea.
Below is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Concepts of God:
Most theists agree that God is the “supreme self” or person—omniscient, omnipotent, and all good. But classical Christian theists have also ascribed four “metaphysical attributes” to God—simplicity, timelessness, immutability, and impassibility. Most classical western theists have also thought that God is timeless—altogether outside of time. God resembles abstract objects like numbers or propositions in having no temporal location or extension. The objects of God's knowledge and act of will are in time but God himself and his activity are not. God is also believed to be immutable.
What part of the above nonsense doesn't violate what we know scientifically? What has even been demonstrated to be outside of time? God has an act of will by no temporal location? We know of no means to achieve an act of will without any temporal form and such an idea violates what we do know.
Again if you want to believe in god that's none of my business but such a belief is based on faith, not science and pretending science has your back when you believe in the supernatural is to make the concept of scientific inquiry worthless in spite of the fact that we both know there is no clearly defined boundary between science and non-science.
John Thornton