1)nature exists a se, unto nature's self, meaning nature isn't relevantly dependent on any other states of affairs in order to exist and to exist as nature: nothing created nature, nature needn't rely on anything existing causally prior in order to exist, etc.
That's consistent
Nature is sovereign, meaning that nature (will) is supreme; anything which exists exists that way because nature (wills) it to be so.
Suddenly just kinda consistent
The paradox is introduced when we ask the question: is nature self-sovereign? Did nature choose to be nature?
Here, things get sticky: if nature had no choice but to be nature, then nature isn't self-sovereign. But then why does nature exist as nature unless something transcendental to narure and outside nature's control makes that the case? If nature isn't self-sovereign, then nature is neither a se nor completely sovereign, and this goes against our common intuitions
So, what happens if we try to argue nature does have self-sovereignty (and chose to be nature)? Well, we quickly find that this is impossible. It puts the cart before the horse: in order for naturr to do something like, say, pick and choose natures own properties, nature must paradoxically already possess some properties -- for instance, knowledge of what properties are possible for nature to possess and power to actualize them. The question immediately arises -- where would those properties have come from? It's obvious nature couldn't have chosen them because in order to choose them nature needs to have already had properties of power and knowledge -- and I hope you can see this is an endless quagmire. In the end, we find that nature having self-sovereignty over nature's "initial" properties isn't even a possibility to ponder.
I'm not sure that replacing "God" with "nature" produces the same problem -- unless it's proposed that nature has conscious sovereignty. The result of the paradox at that point would simply be that something is transcendental to conscious sovereignty: something unchosen.