Alright. If you want to have your argument treated like real logic, then I will oblige. What I am going to do now is break down the first half of your argument to demonstrate how horribly flawed it is. The second half (Jesus is God) necessitates the truth of the first half (God exists). I am not interested in the historical issues surrounding Jesus. If you want to debate the divinity of Jesus, talk to a Jew.

I will now analyze every sentence you have posted in regards to proof of God's existence. I will translate it into logical annotation, and then show why you are wrong. So here goes.

Since nature has been proven to always have a cause by the overwhelming number of cause and effects...
Here, you're saying that any thing that is within nature n must have a cause c.
1. n → c

... this necessarily leads to an infinite regress...
So, c leads to an infinite regress i.
2. c → i

but you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so, so therefore, there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects. Pure logic.
Meaning, there is no infinite regress.
3. ¬i

Since nature can't always have existed, that which is outside of nature (time, matter and space) necessarily must exist that brings the universe into being. This timeless and spaceless uncaused cause is our uncreated Creator. This is whom we call God.
Since nature is not eternal n(¬e), then there must exist a thing that we will call god g.
4. n(¬e) → g

So here's the entirety of the argument so far:

1. n → c
2. c → i
3. ¬i
4. n(¬e) → g

Not a single one of these premises has any relation to another premise. There is no logic in your argument, only a series of unrelated claims. You have made no inference. You have made no deduction.

If anything, premises 1, 2, and 3 would show, via the hypothetical syllogism and modus tollens, that there is nothing within nature, and I seriously don't think that's the route you were trying to go.

Furthermore, I only accept premise 2 as true, and none of the others. You have not yet given me a reason to do so.

To argue against me, you've got a few options:
1. Show where I have unfairly annotated your argument.
2. Demonstrate that you actually have made a conclusion (and I am more than willing to draw a truth table to illustrate that you have not)
3. Refine this argument so that it is logical, or scrap it and get a new one.

Again, if you have any questions in regards to anything I have said, I am willing to answer. I'm not engaging in this discussion for the sake of making you or anyone else look like a fool, so curiosity will not be met with scorn.