It’s interesting you lean toward ignosticism since this is such a rare position to hold. However, there are some qualities about God that can be safely assumed even if a complete and concise definition of God doesn’t. Namely, that God is eternal.
Since God is eternal, one can conclude that he will always exist and always has (a priori.) Using this single attribute, a very strong argument can be made for God’s existence. Namely, the first cause argument.
Given the temporal geometry of the universe (ie. it has a beginning) then it makes sense the universe has a cause since all things that have beginnings have causes. One could argue that a sort of multiverse is responsible for our own universe, however, if there was a point in the multiverse before which our universe didn’t exist, and after which it did, then it is safe to assume the multiverse experiences time. This would mean that the multiverse has a beginning and therefore a cause in itself. Of course, you could continue with even more elaborate hierarchies of unifying universes ad infinitum, but it is much more logical to assume the existence of a being that caused the universe to exist without itself being created or having a beginning.
If you only assume this single attribute about God (something, by the way all monotheistic religions and most polytheistic ones maintain) a very strong argument about the mere existence of God can be made. Whether His other attributes follow those commonly thought must be decided with further logical investigation.
What you describe as "much more logical" sounds to me like throwing up your hands and saying, "I give up. It's must be magic!"
What ypu seem to feel is an impossible-to-conceive vast continuum of hierarchies, others see as a frontier of knowledge to explore and understand.
On the contrary...one can easily imagine a God that isn't eternal. Just as the universe isn't infinite (although it's pretty darn big), one can come up with a God that isn't eternal (but is pretty darn big). The ancient Greek gods come to mind. They were powerful, but they had their flaws (and how...). They certainly weren't eternal.
Since God is eternal, one can conclude that he will always exist and always has (a priori.) Using this single attribute, a very strong argument can be made for God’s existence. Namely, the first cause argument.
Saying that God (or gods) is eternal is an assumption, as pointed out above. The ancients didn't think so, and who's to say that they were wrong compared to the majority opinion today on such matters? It's not as if it's falsifiable...hence, ignosticism.
Given the temporal geometry of the universe (ie. it has a beginning) then it makes sense the universe has a cause since all things that have beginnings have causes.
Actually, the Big Bang theory doesn't posit a beginning as such...rather, it describes the universe when it was extremely hot and dense approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago. It does not make any predictions or descriptions of the universe (whatever that means in context) previous to that. To put it another way, a long time ago the universe was extremely hot and dense and started expanding, but before that point in time? Your guess is as good as mine.
There is (as yet) simply no good information on what was around before the Big Bang. Maybe the universe has a true "beginning". Maybe it doesn't. Until it's falsifiable, the question is pointless (but amusing to speculate on, granted).