Any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical

I will start by clarifying what was clearly misunderstood in regards to my counter of complexity. I was not arguing that the created order is so complex we can't grasp it, my argument was it is not complex at all, rather orderly. My point was complexity need not be in the equation. The example of the artist was to demonstrate that point. The example of the biologist demonstrated that although we lack the knowledge to recreate the created order, it can be studied and is in fact found to be orderly and with purpose. Another point that was misunderstood, I was not using the Bible for proof of Gods existence with the quoted verse, its use was to answer the question on a purpose. I'll address its relevancy later. Although the title suggested the same old argument in regard to logic, my opponents opening arguments seemed a "new approach", and I chose to change my initial direction and focus a little on those. I myself was mistaken however as the responses show the same out of order arguments that fill these discussions. What do I mean by out of order? For most of recorded time a god was credited with origins and in some cases continued interaction with humanity. In recent history alternative theories and ideas have been introduced some of which I admit flow quite systematically. Whenever these discussions present themselves the opponent of a god disregards everything that came before and changes the rules by placing the favor,bias and logic on the side of the alternatives. As if the argument in favor of a god came after the new and needs to refute the yet unproven theory in order to itself be logical. As I have stated multiple times I do not enter this with the dillusuion I will change atheists to believers or even the investigator to a conclusion, my only desire is to show it is not illogical to argue for an omnipotent, and omniscient God. First we must build a foundation We know everything has a cause and effect. Therefore any effect without a cause is contrary to or outside of natural law. This leaves us two options as I previously argued, although there may be many possibilities within those options, it is still two. 1. Everything we know of natural law is wrong and therefore everything built on it is flawed, since this allows for limitless options, any systematic sustainable theory would be logical until it can be universally disproved. 2. The other option is; everything we know of natural law is correct and was set in motion by a god. Considering something outside of natural law as we know it is the only answer that exists, whether we credit it to a god or some other unknown, this option must at least be explored therefore I would argue is in the very least built upon a logical foundation. Once a god is part of the discussion all information we have available on a particular god automatically becomes relevant. It cannot be dismissed on the grounds of the elements that fall outside of natural law, as I have already argued every option begins outside of natural law. Following the subject matter of an "infinitely-intelligent creator god" one major option of gods that stands out is the God of the Bible. The information and historical accounts contained in the Bible provide examples of His omnipotence, and His intelligence. One can argue, and my opponent has, that the Bible cannot be used as a legitimate source, but as I argue above, on the subject of whether or not arguing for an infinitely-intelligent creator god is logical, it is not only completely relevant but a major part of the argument itself. This one "tactic" ,if you will, whether purposeful or not is where the disconnect on the subject lies. The argument is logical based on the sum of its parts, when opponents of the subject divide it into two topics; God, and the Bible, it has no option but to become illogical you can no longer make a reasonable argument because the two coexist, the rules imposed are you cannot argue for God with the Bible for reasons A,B, and C, just as you cannot use God as an argument for the Bible. The authenticity of either are not what makes it logical or illogical, the fact that they are at this current time in history still intelligently debatable is the very thing that makes it logical. I conclude if you begin at the beginning on a level playing field, which is an effect without a cause, whether you view it as fact or theory, the God of the Bible, an infinitely-intelligent creator God, provides a theory that is both systematic and sustainable , and therefore is presently both reasonable and logical.