Just because God isn't limited by logic doesn't mean he follows none of it. Besides, 'existence' is a word that we define the meaning of. For example, if we say "If A, then God. If B then not God. The universe is either A or B. Therefore, God is limited by logic." is not true logic as we are the ones making up the rules for it. This is all to say that while we can't fully comprehend God certainly does not mean that we can't comprehend God at all. If not then the Bible would be pointless.
'God' is also a word we define the meaning of and make the rules up for. You can't apply this definitonal argument but conveniently exclude the word "god' from it. And you're buffering god around like the ball in a pinball machine - "god's illogical, no he only seems
illogical to us, no, hang on, he isn't illogical to us because he follows logic so he can be logical to us". Instead of switching what god is or isn't capable of every time I show it up to be contradictory or inconceivable, just realise that the ball has fallen out the bottom and it's game over.
If God doesn't follow all of logic, then he is illogical, even if he does follow some of it, once again going back to human's "If A, then God. If B then not God." 'logic'.
You're appealing to logic in order to explain that god is illogical if he doesn't follow all logic, ie - "If A, then god is logical. If B, then god is illogical". In actuality if B, then A and B.
Once again, I do accept that if God is out of our reach that we wouldn't be able to fully comprehend him by our own works. We wouldn't be able to look at the universe and know how God did it. We could theorize about an intelligent designer but that is all we could do, theorize.
Looking at the universe will tell you how the universe works. It will not show you how something external to it works. "Theorize" is very generous. Even conjecture is being generous. Waving around, blurting out any meaningless white noise that fits in with our evidence free, most comforting beliefs sounds more accurate.
This is all thrown out the window of course because of the Bible, where God directly tells us these things that we originally would not have been able to learn on our own. While we still can't fully comprehend God (Where did God come from? How can God be 3 persons in one?) we can still know some things that we originally could not know.
Honestly, you might as well have not bothered typing anything here. You believe the bible is the word of god, yet you have given me no reason or justification as to why you believe that and why it should hold any reverence. I don't care what the bible says. It is no different than any other piece of written or spoken word about god, whether that comes from you, the muslim nextdoor, or Christopher Robin.
Here's how I see it. I find a fully natural origin/existence impossible because it defies the laws of logic. Therefore the origin/existence must have a supernatural cause (by definition). After that it just comes down to discerning which supernatural cause it was. In which case it stops being about science and starts being about theology, history, etc.
It depends where you draw the line with nature. If you confine nature to the universe, then of course by definition, if there was a point where there was no universe, then there was no nature and the universe wasn't created by it.
However, you can't find the illogicallity of a natural origin of the universe to be a reason to find it impossible, while at the same time claim god to be illogical (where it suits you) but not see him as impossible. That's just special pleading and being inconsistent.