I appreciate the compliments earlier, but must enlarge on one point to examine Steve's post:

"Theology is the art of taking a completely false premise and constructing a whole ringfenced philosophy around it."

I can't take credit for the original, even though it strikes a chord.... but its relevance is that it doesn't assert what premises are true OR false. It merely suggests that theological contortions of reason usually include some 'bad' reasons. We really can't demonstrate that its premise is "completely false".... but we can infer that IF you run into contradictions in logic and/or fact and discover that 2 or 3.... or many... conclusions that cannot all be true follow from the original premise(s), then at least one premise must be false.... and of course, perhaps all of them. **From false premises, anything follows**

An argument is 'sound' if it has both true premises AND correct structure. (It may be trivial, but that's another issue)

The real, simple, basic point is that there are certain claims that we cannot construct sound arguments for, because we can't determine what the required true premises are.... and "how the Universe began" ...or even IF it had a beginning... is just speculation and subjective opinion. It may be that we cannot even formulate the question correctly, given our mental & scientific limitations. But.... people being what they are, most WANT a satisfying answer, and all this 'logic' stuff is just tedious blather to most of them.
Somehow, I got the bug early on to try to figure out what made sense, not just sink into some comfortable belief system. Once I had a couple courses in comparative religion and saw how many competing 'comfortable systems' there were, none of them seemed comfortable. ;>)... so I post these long bits, mainly to sort out my own thoughts.