anybody can create form, because form is an abstraction living in the field of forms.
implementing form, that's a different problem.
I suggest to drop these irrelevant aspects and go for this:
experience defined as "what I am doing right now" (and in the case of no solipsist universe, "what you are doing right now"), no matter its ultimate nature
reality=what you can in/directly experience and what can in/directly affect your experience
abstraction=arbitrary point of view on experienceable or inexperiencable thing
now, observation: we can create abstractions, for example "a game of chess"
observation: from the POV of a chess piece, reality is not our reality with sun moon bad weather and cats toppling pieces from the board, reality is and only is "the sequence of move, that is the state of the board move after move" because that's the only thing he, through the mind of the player, can observe and be affected by.
So, reality is in the plane of the abstraction. Real for a racing videogame are the videogame cars.
Observation, as we are able to create abstractions, can we be the result of an abstraction?
As an aside: occam's razor says that any reason determining our reality as the ultimate abstraction, from which all other abstractions stem is an ADDITIONAL HYPOTHESIS, so it should be either proven or discarded as needless. (but as we don't consider occam's razor proof in the ramblings of atheists we don't consider it proof here and proceed).
Observation: if we are the result of an abstraction, the origin of the abstraction, we call it the supernatural, or god's dimension, or meta or charlie, whatever, is UNBOUND by the characteristics of the abstraction, time and space included.
Observation: an environment where time is not defined can't define causality, so it is perfectly logical for the supernatural NOT TO NEED A CREATOR ITSELF
Observation: an environment where space and time are not defined can't necessarily be object of application of our logic system, which uses implication and determination of state as true and false. Even special multi state systems, that we ourselves will probably need in the future to make sense of quantum level stuff, are not necessarily applicable in an unknown system. For example, with a banal universe U={} the principle of no contradiction does not hold, and without that, ANY SINGLE LOGICAL IMPLICATION OR REASONING DEVISED BY ATHEISTS AND BELIEVERS ALIKE IS DESTROYED.
Observation: the relation between abstraction and supernatural of the abstraction is more similar to a dreamer and a dream, of a videogame and a videogame character, than the idea of a creator, and a creation, both operating in the same spacetime system, and bound by it.
Conclusion: your model are probably requiring a spacetime superstructure that engulfes the hypothetical god, which is wrong, because ANY ASSERTION OUTSIDE THE DOMAIN OF THE ABOVE DEFINED "REALITY" IS NOT NECESSARILY MAKING ANY SENSE AT ALL.
Corollary, any atheist proof is not definitive, any theological argument cannot deny the arbitrarily chosen religious revelations you start from.
Example, if atheist says 'if world needs creator, the creator needs creator too lulz' you reply 'prove first that the concept of creation is defined in the context of god, protip you can't'
Example of arguments that didn't hold even before all of the above ramblings, If religion says god is omnipotent, and atheist says "if so, can God make an unbreakable rock and then break it?" you can indeed answer "yes and no", because, if atheist says "It must either be yes or no" you reply "I always lie, is this a true or false statement.yes or no?" because he didn't talk about god, he simply user a circular argument and you replied with one.