Wow! No structure, no restrictions, no rules?! You mean no… complexity? Such entities sound far less complex than any sentient entity I’ve encountered!
It certainly appears that way inside the universe, but if you’re applying this claim to any sentience whatsoever, inside the universe or otherwise, then, “cite please”.
You’d really like to have your cake and eat it to wouldn’t you?
I’m not following you.
If what you’re saying is “Oh whoops, I thought you were some sort of Christian creationist, time for me to perform a bit of smoke and mirrors in the hope that nobody notices my flub!”, then, cool. Impressive 
I see this more and more, where religionists can no longer refer to the old style “God Of The Gaps”, and have switched to the “God Of The Vague”. If they don’t describe(at least in public) aspects of their deity, those aspects can’t be examined.
I can’t tell you a whole lot about the entity itself, because I don’t know much about it.
I simply see the product of its handiwork.
Yep, you disagree - but the point I would like to stress is, I am not being deliberately vague so that my detractors have a minimal amount of meat to try and make a meal with, I am being vague because I just don’t have any strong understanding about the hows and whys of the entity whose existence I am inclined to believe in. I speculate the entity is a creator/designer that is immaterial, timeless, and powerful. I can’t offer up much more.
Your logic is so screwed up and full of holes it’s hard to even call it logic.
Time is required to effect change, therefore something which is timeless couldn’t change, create, or destroy anything.
And where did you get "immaterial’ and “timeless” from your interpretation that most all things in nature seem to be designed? Be careful there-you are presenting aspects that can be examined logically.
The guy says that we can’t define its properties because we can’t observe it, then he goes on to define its properties, it doesn’t get any better than that.
Of course it could, as long as the timeless entity itself doesn’t undergo change.
I don’t believe the sum of finite things (such as seconds) can equal infinite. Maybe it’s possible, but it seems far too illogical for me to accept.
If my assumption is true, then we could “rewind” the universe back to it’s immediate starting point, of which nothing exists prior.
I don’t believe that nothing can cause universes to come in to existence, hence, I believe something caused it.
Now, if this “something” is a material entity, then it’s bound by time. I reject that time stretches back “forever” for reasons already stated, hence, I conclude the entity that designed/created the universe is a timeless, immaterial entity.
So what did this timeless entity do before she/he/it decided to create the universe?
Where did she/he/it acquire the knowledge to do this?
Why do you consider a timeless entity with infinite intelligence more probable than an infinite universe that constantly creates and destroys itself, considering that there is no evidence(outside of your own need to see patterns where none might exist) for such an entity?
Are you using a definition of 'immaterial" that I am unaware of? If this entity is immaterial, how can it touch, and if it cannot touch, how can it affect anything?
I don’t understand why this give you any problems at all. An infinite series will always approach infinity as long as the individual terms don’t tend to zero, and sometimes even then. I’ve known some people to have difficulty grasping how an infinite series can have a finite limit, but never the opposite.
An infinite number of finite units = infinity.
Nope. Any manipulation would require a change of state in the entity, which would require time.
How can anything change something else, and not be changed itself?
A timeless entity has no “before” or “after”. Before and after require time.
If the “knowledge” possessed by the entity was “acquired”, that means at some point, the entity did not possess such knowledge. The act of moving from an unknowledgeable state to a knowledgeable invokes time, violating the entity from being in a timeless state.
If the universe has been constantly creating and destroying itself, then it has existed forever, meaning the sum of all seconds is infinite. I reject that the total sum of some finite thing can equal infinite.
Start by dropping every assumption about touch/influence/affect that you’ve got as a result of existing inside the universe, operating in material and spatial dimensions while all the while being bound by time.
You’re trying to compare what it would be like to exist in a timeless, immaterial state to what it’s like to exist here in the universe and thus having to deal with space, time and matter.
Vinny Gambini: How could it take you five minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes?
Mr. Tipton: Um… I’m a fast cook, I guess.
Vinny Gambini: What? I’m sorry I was over there. Did you just say you were a fast cook? Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than any place on the face of the earth?
Mr. Tipton: I don’t know.
Vinny Gambini: Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove. Were these magic grits?
That’s just clever wordplay. I don’t accept you can have “an infinite number of finite units”.
Secondly, your statement about “approaching infinite” sounds close without the cigar. Please give an example of something that sums to infinite that exists in actuality.
In other words, you know how immaterial entities affect change? Please describe the process for us.