To take it a step further, the very nature of our universe suggests that these questions cannot be answered through naturalistic observations (how could we observe that which is outside of our existential bubble?). Due to the limitations science has in providing naturalistic explanations, we can logically infer that something transcendent of natural law is a catalyst for these events.
But here's the thing: you haven't demonstrated that there are any questions about the origin of the universe (or life) which are absolutely out of the reach of science. You've only made an assumption that there are. Worse, having drawn your arbitrary boundary ("limitations") of science, you've simply stepped over the line and set up shop for your god.
You say that "the very nature of our universe suggests that these questions cannot be answered through naturalistic observations." But that is just so much rhetoric. The fact is that you do not know if a completely naturalistic explanation for the universe is attainable or not. Even if it isn't, it seems to me that ignorance is the most intellectually defensible position to take, rather than gratuitously positing an entity which requires no cause or evidence; an entity which is only one of an infinite number of equally plausible entities; an entity which can only exist in circular arguments and rhetorical vacuums. What is wrong with saying "I don't know?"
On this "intuitive" jazz: