A definitional quibble
Creation doesn't exist, except as a mistaken concept. All energy is indestructible and cannot be created or destroyed. Gods can't create energy. They can't destroy energy, they can only redirect and shape energy.
This may be a quibble, but I think it's fundamental to this thread's topic: Wouldn't a "god" more properly be described as a being not subject to the laws of physics? Isn't that what "supernatural" means?
All you're describing is, I think, just a scaled-up human, and that, I believe, is the major weakness of the vast majority of human religions so far. The story of Genesis I find remarkably unimaginative, just a God-the-Landscape-Artist exercizing super powers to bulldoze firmament and air and land and waters, and to plant trees and shrubs using Point-and-Plant™ technology.
If you can conceive of a godlike power, it's not a god you're describing. It's just a bigger and more powerful mortal. All concepts of God as a "Creator" or "Designer" suffer from that weakness--they're just human job titles writ large. We have met God, and he is us.
Here's an even more abstract quibble, with "And because it is infinite, it can never be fully defined, understood in a single philosophy, ideosophy or conveyed in a single post."
Au contraire. A Grand Unified Theory of Everything might fully define all possibilities in an infinite universe/multiverse. There may be an staggeringly large number of possibilities--10500 universes in a multiverse is the largest number put forth so far--but the number is finite. These finitely-possible universes might be infinite in several dimensions, but what may exist in those dimensions may be describable and bounded.
To put it another way, the laws of the universe are "production rules" that produce an infinite number of variations on a theme; but the rules themselves are finite and understandable. Finite rules can produce infinite results, and thus it's possible for a finite mind to grasp infinity by grasping the rules that produce it.
Got all that?