would it really be so fallacious to use an argument for a god that it is above its own creation?
When talking about arguments you need two things: a hypothesis, and an argument or evidence in support of a hypothesis. I cant tell from your question what is supposed to be the hypothesis and what is supposed to be the argument. Saying "god is above its own creation" isnt an argument, its just a hypothesis or statement. You mention "an argument for" such a hypothesis, but I have no idea what youre talking about.
When I say "an argument for the existence of that particular creator", what I mean is that if you were to argue for the existence of a creator in that way then you would have a hypothesis - "God exists", and an argument - "God must exist because he can exist a-causally outside of time and space and nothing else can". The "and nothing else can" part of the argument is special pleading. Simply saying "this is possible" is fine because it isnt really an argument or any form of reasoning, its simply a statement.
For example: If an omniscient god exists he could create the universe without needing a cause within this universe. But I can also say that if string theory is true then collisions of extradimensional string theory branes could create the universe without needing a cause within this universe. There is nothing special about the hypothesised god being outside of the universe. For the idea of the god to be worth considering there needs to be an argument as to why
the god can be outside the universe but extradimensional string theory branes cant be. Simply saying that the god hypothesis is valid but the string theory hypothesis isnt valid, without supporting it with logic or evidence, is the point at which it becomes fallacious special pleading.