Please note, gosh I have to explain everything, that I am not denigrating or diminishing Science. On the contrary by establishing its boundaries and scope I am giving it the tools to not stretch and chew more than it really can do.
It looks to me that you are doing just the opposite.
You are giving science carte blanche to make up entire universes out of nothing and without any evidence. The only reason Everett et al rejects the Big Bang as the beginning is because of the philosophical/theological implications. Science readily admits that all its actual tools are useless before 10^ -36 seconds after the Big Bang.
Harvard’s physics dept. position is this:
Near a black hole, the slowing of time is extreme. From the viewpoint of an observer outside the black hole, time stops. .
Even if we concede that it only slows down to a point where we can’t measure it, the point remains the time is malleable and therefore is no obstacle to proposing a God outside of time. If we are going to assert entire unknown universes, I can assert completely different dimensions of time for a God to be in while being outside of ours.
But OK, I hear you saying you want to stay in the realm of philosophy. I assume your philosophy allows for other universes from what you’ve said above.. Doing that gives anyone equal justification for claiming virtually anything. I could say - God is in one of those other universes, where time is different.
I’d be making up crap but no more than your assertions about what a God 'has to be'. How does this get us anywhere?