1. Our human perception of infinite quantities is rather limited. Most people cannot fathom that there are varying degrees of infinity unless they've taken advanced mathematics. There are actually infinite sizes of infinity. This "all-powerful" notion is quite simply a concept of infinity and as any infinite quantity is not limited - no limit - all powerful.

2. All-knowing only so far as the Universe is concerned. The constraints not bound by a Universe are not known or not said to be known.

3. All-loving, don't think this applies to the general notion of a Creator.

4. Creator is everywhere. This doesn't make sense to me either, if anything, the creator is outside the Universe itself.

5. One Creator - Base case? Not sure, there could be many.

6. Plan for humanity - not applicable to the general idea. 

The reasoning that a creator is necessary for the Universe to exist is, quite frankly, an unfounded one. Causality is indeed a Universal principle, but there is nothing to suggest that there was no catalyst for the Big Bang, and a catalyst certainly need not be a Creator, or fabricated by one. Reducing the argument and simply saying "A creator must have created this" is just a copout. It isn't a theory based upon evidence and known laws of our Universe, it's based upon nothing.

Causality is a principle in our Universe, there isn't anything to suggest our laws exist outside the Universe. No spacetime, no gravity, no 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc. This is boundless freedom. In boundless freedom, anything can happen. We have no knowledge to conclude otherwise.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "Creationist."  I do believe God created humans, but did so through a long and complicated process that we are discovering today.  (without the need for silly notions like "intelligent design") I see science and the universe, and our fascinating and complex biological history, as a gift, a mystery to be cherished and enjoyed, not disregarded and vilified.  So as I fully embrace ideas like the big bang and evolution, I doubt I'm what you're looking for.  But I'll share my thoughts anyway.

#2, 4, and 5 all go back to #1.  If a being is indeed all-powerful, then it must, logically, also be all-knowing, essentially existing in all places at the same time, and there must then be only one.  Even if there are, in some sense, multiple gods, if they all share the characteristic of being all-powerful(and therefore knowing all and existing everythwere), then they must co-exist as one.  Another possible way some may think of it is: God IS the universe....or the universe is (part of?) God.

#1, 3 and 6 are religious beliefs, plain and simple.  They can be nothing more.  Assuming the existence of an all-powerful creator(which can only be an assumption), then a loving creator is likely, based on the fact (or belief) that we have free will* and we haven't been utterly destroyed yet.  It also goes to the question of why we exist, some, perhaps many, believe it is due to love.

*unimpeded, unrestricted free will.  This is the answer to questions like "how could God allow this tragedy to occur?"  Without true free will, there can be no faith.  Without faith, there is no need for God.  A creation without free will is has no meaning to an all-powerful creator.

As for a plan...there's debate, even among the religious.  Some believe the events described as apocalyptic have already happened and/or that they don't, in fact, describe the end of everything.  Others believe that humanity will spiral out of control and eventually all will come to an end.  Still others, of course, believe the end is immenent. (that's nothing new)

I like to beleive that, with our freedom and courage and determination, humanity will accomplish great things in the future.  But, regardless of religion, I do worry that we will destroy ourselves as we discover and invent more and more ways of doing so.  If that's the case, perhaps it would be better if a higher power stepped in to save us from the destruction that we bring upon ourselves.

1. You didn't argue my point. You agreed that a creator would be as powerful as our universe and powerful enough to create everything that exists in our universe. But where's the logic in assuming it can create everything, including things that don't exist in our universe?

2. Please make the distinction between "every single tiny thing" and "all knowledge." Give some examples because I don't know where you draw the line between the two. Also, if this being didn't know "every single tiny thing" wouldn't it not be all-knowing? Well, I guess that depends on your definition of all-knowing.

As for your archichect analogy, I wouldn't be so sure. Yeah he would know everything about the building initially. But after creating it, it's likely that he wouldn't keep up without all the changes of the  building unless he constantly observed the building (which we have no reason to believe he does. Perhaps he went to focus on new buildings). And this is without considering free will I f this architect threw in a bunch of beings with free will to do whatever they wanted without interference, it seems likely he wouldn't always know what was going on in his building.

3. Is this based on religion? Where's the logic that associates the creator with a father, especially a loving father?

4. Sure, a 3D being would be able to see more than the 2D being, but there's no reason to believe it would be able to interact with the entirety of the 2D being's reality. It would be able to interact with multiple places in the 2D being's reality, but why would it be able to interact with all of it?

5. That's unfortunate.

6. Why do you believe there is a plan for our species?

Well, a creator having the first three characteristics is self-contradicting. Can a creator create something beyond his ability of comprehension? If yes, then he wouldn't be all-knowing, so that characteristic isn't inherent to the creator. If not, then the creator isn't all-powerful.

Also, why would the creator not rid our world of pain and suffering? If he can't, then he's not all-powerful. If he can, but won't then he is not all-loving. If he's ignorant of it, then he's not all-knowing.

Lastly, everyone has probably heard this one a thousand times, but can an all-powerful creator create a rock so big that he can't lift it?

The creator is everywhere? I never understood this either. The only way this makes sense is if the creator is everything. In which case, the creator is just the universe. So why give the universe another name?

"There's only one creator" kind of makes sense. It's a lot closer to reality than saying there are multiple creators: you're only off by one. Needless to say, it's still wrong.

The creator has a plan for humanity? This is another one I never understood. Think about it. A supposed all-powerful being created you. Being all-powerful, he probably needed to put in no effort whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that we'd be so measly in comparison to such a transcendent being. Why the hell would he care about us??? Why would he want to steer us in one direction or another, why would he have an end goal in mind? The existence of an end goal itself is hard to comprehend. Why not just achieve the said goal using the omnipotence?

1. I said 'at least' as powerful as the universe which He created. Our ability to describe Him can only go so far. My point is we use our limited intellect and frame of reference to describe something that is so outside the realm of our own understanding as to be indescribable and unknowable in scope and magnitude as related to our finite understanding. The term 'all powerful' is a term that is based upon a frame of reference. Any aspects of this beyond our own space/time limits is purely theoretical or religious. If you look at various religious texts, there are intra-dimensional beings described as having been created by the creator, so in a religious/faith discussion we can argue that the Creator can and has created things outside the constraints and laws of the universe. In a discussion outside of religion/faith, this is of course unprovable and unknowable.

2. Does 'all knowing' mean having all Wisdom, or knowing every single thing that is happening at any given moment? This is a very long and deep discussion with many theories and doctrines. If you were to design and create a computer system and know how every single circuit and line of code works, then give that computer system to a friend, you would have 'all knowledge' about that computer, but not necessarily know at every moment what your friend is doing on that computer. On the other hand, you could design the system to report back to you every single aspect of it's use, so could also theoretically make a way to know everything about both the computer's functions, and the way it is being used. There are multiple beliefs on this subject and I'm not really sure where I fall on this one to be honest.

3. This is largely based off faith, Some faiths see God as a tyrranical ruler that requires strict obedience or wants us killed, some faiths believe He is a loving creator that decided to give us a way to better ourselves and find forgiveness. (Taken from my post below): "If (the sake of this discussion) you accept the axiom that humanity was created, then consider the idea that we are created 'in the image' of the creator, you would only need to then understand the love a father or mother has for their newly born child." Christians also make the argument that He loved humanity so much that He actually came down as a man, but without accepting that...

4. If He is not only outside of space as we define it, but also outside of time, He could in theory interact with any person/situation at any time, therefore having the ability to be everywhere at once. Since our only frame of reference is from inside time, this theoretical concept is difficult to describe. We are obviously constrained to time, so how could we even imagine what it would mean to be outside time? We know there are wavelengths of light (and therefore theoretical colors) that we can't see, but try for a second to imagine a color you've never seen. Based on your frame of reference, those colors cannot be imagined.

5. I guess one non-religious argument that could be made for a single creator would be the in the harmony of physical laws and the similarities seen in  the building blocks of life (amino acids, DNA, RNA, etc.). The harmony of all aspects of creation would point to a single designer if we assume the universe was designed/created.

6. That's based on faith and would tie back to the end of what I said in point 3.

Answering the questions of the origins of the universe with a creator merely brings on an even bigger question of the origins of that creator.

You bring up some commonly used, but still interesting paradoxes on the subject. For the sake of discussion, I hope you find some of my thoughts on these subjects interesting.

1. You're basically arguing that there is no possibility of anything being all powerful, all-knowing, or infinite. This argument is like asking 'can anything be larger than infinity', then using the answer to that question to disprove the concept of infinity. It's a self-defeating argument based solely on the inability for finite beings to fully comprehend the concept of 'infinity', or in this case 'all-powerful'.

2. This would go back to the very complex and deep debate on free will and love. If this creator chose to give humanity free will, and the pain and suffering of humanity is due to misuse of this free will, the creator would be contradicting the very law of the free will he gave us by eliminating that suffering (as he would have to force us to act in a certain way). Without free will, it is impossible for love to exist. A robot that is hard coded to act in exactly the way it is created cannot love somebody and could not inspire reciprocal love. Without the potential for darkness, there is no such thing as light. Without the potential for hate, what is love? Without the potential for cold, what is warmth?

3. Theoretically, is the creator actually everywhere, or is this simply how he is described based on a limited frame of reference (we are constrained to time/space, while the theoretical creator in this discussion is not)?

4. If (the sake of this discussion) you accept the axiom that humanity was created, then consider the idea that we are created 'in the image' of the creator, you would only need to then understand the love a father or mother has for their newly born child. In every aspect, the parent is technically far superior to the newly born child, but loves him/her immensely. No matter what that child does to 'mess up', a good parent will continue to love that child. Every parent would have specific plans or goals for that child, finish high school, go to college, maybe carry on the family business, but since the child has free will, there is no way to guarantee those plans will be met exactly without 'forcing', and thereby defeating free will and not acting in love. Free will and the concept of love are the two concepts that expain this apparent paradox.

0) I don't have fear and I believe he exists. Picture that.

1) I don't see how that negates his absolute power. If he can't make anyone more powerful than he is, that pretty much means that that's not a valid idea and that your proposition is invalid. That would be like saying infinity isn't the greatest value because you can add 1 to infinity, making it not the greatest value.

@OP. A creator is worthy of praise. Assuming he is not himself created and the praise is not intended to go a level higher, to a higher creator, then I am thinking that the utmost creator is worthy of all praise and that he is almighty.

2) Knowing =/= needing... He could make the universe without needing to. @OP. Knowledge is power imho. So for the creator to be all powerful, he should be all knowing.

3) There is, since love is the most powerful energy in the universe, it's necessary that an all-mighty creator is also all-loving.

4) I don't know what you mean.

5) I think that many creators makes sense so long as the creators are truly one in all direction and essense (they are basically 1 essentially).

6)  Well, that's part of a bigger picture. It need not be the case. However, it really does make sense given our helpless nature (we really are helpless, very flawed and desperate for love), a plan of salvation is a natural idea. It's kind of logical to me.

EDIT: @OP. I'll concede that the most contestable one is all-mighty. However, think of it the case where the creature was able to learn and outgrow its creator. In such a case, there is something in the universe that allows the creature to outgrow its creator, and that process of learning is in itself part of the created order, leading one to believe that there was a greater creator than the original mini-creator in the first place...

Ultimately, believing in God is a leap of faith that requires all these to be true all at once. It all makes sense, but you have to get to the question first.

Well, we can create machines that are more powerful than we are: cars are faster than us, cranes can lift heavier things, we have stuff that manipulates single atoms, we can build machines that fly us to the moon - and so on. I don't think we can conclude the creator of the universe is at least as powerful as the universe.

Yes, but we create things using matter & physical laws that already exist. Apples to oranges.

My point was comparing the power of this creator to that of the big bang, which would have been equal to all matter and energy in the universe (infinite as far as our observation and capacity can measure), therefore, whatever caused the big bang would theoretically need to possess the same or greater power than the big bang (every action has an equal and opposite reaction). This would suggest that if a creator caused the big bang, the amount of force necessary to cause the big bang would be infinite according to our frame of reference & understanding of physical laws.