Logic is neither happenstance nor design. It's a human construct. The apologist creates a false dichotomy in order to --again-- promote the idea that a god is necessary. But it's just another presupposition. There is no way to demonstrate that logic must be happenstance or "designed." It's nonsense. A way to attempt to push the burden of proof to the non-believer when you do not have any answers for your own proposition.
But hey-- let's accept that a god is necessary and that the universe is designed. The likeliest god is not any of the ones we have heard of. None of those are demonstrable. This bait-and-switch tactic, where the apologist tries to sneak in his god for the necessary god, is dishonest and demonstrates that you cannot get any farther than sloppy arguments for 'design.' Because you've got to account for all of these "designs," not just the ones that are convenient for the argument you're trying to make.