What are you doing is this…you are living within a self-made way of understanding who or what God is and then forming a narrative from events manifesting in Scripture according to your concept.
This is confirmation-bias. You have started with a premise and then formed a narrative from the foundation which you have built. And then having stuck with it, have kept with it for so long that you have moved away from the point of questioning your own ideas.
The point here is that in Genesis, God answers Moses with, “I Am Who I Am”. This is an answer which leaves an open-ended conclusion as is it is for Moses to ponder and to be given knowledge of this understanding over time as knowledge of God can only be ‘revealed’ (as God is God) and must also be in a relational capacity between said-worshipper and God for the worshipper to begin to try and fathom who is God is; otherwise, for God to expound an in-depth explanation would be tantamount to giving Moses a book to read rather than for him to…live…in a growing understanding of and trust in…who God is.
‘I Am Who I Am’, as an answer, does in fact , in itself reveal / give an idea…as to the immensity of God as the Alpha and Omega and that summing Him up with labels will only in the long-term undermine rather than in some manner serve to form Moses’ journey of learning and imbue trust.
The reality of God for Creation is lived worship. And this can only be understood, once you’re living along that path. God does give Moses the Commandments and orders to carry out and in Scripture God reveals aspects of Himself to the prophets as they come to know Him.
A lived knowledge of God, is worship, and only in relation to the true God as opposed to a false idol. Only a person who is living in worship of the true God can be imparted with knowledge of God and only such a person would want to worship God because God is not a dictator (such as the gods of other world ‘religions’).
There was a book called, ‘The God of Surprises’, written by Gerard W. Hughes, and I would recommend it. A God who is answerable to an umbrella-term is a product of our own making (of the human mind) as we cannot truly, as created beings, fathom that which is unfathomable.
Therefore, it appears that you wish to put God into a compartment so that you can feel that you understand who or what He is at the outset.
I’m not going to leave the matter here, either, because I wish to take your own words further in debate as you keep using 'Logic as an explanation.
Logic is within the subject-framework of mathematics and a subset area of reasoning. You never watched Star Trek? God is Dr. Spock? Because there are a whole bunch of characters in those episodes and one might assume that they would all exist within one God who could understand all of them rather than God living within just one of the characters and indeed one which can only calculate (like Ai) what it is like to feel an emotion.
If your foundation for understanding was to be formed on a definition consisting of God meaning God as ‘the Creator’ then you would surely see that calling God ‘Logic’ is to only give rise to one aspect of Him. Many instances in life are not logical and yet are the right ones, when taking into account a…whole…situation. Maybe you became unstuck with ‘The Matrix’ and never moved on?
Only a robot-god could be omni-logical, as the first premise. And I don’t worship Panasonic.