Every logical argument . . .
. . traced far enough back will be found based on a premise that is not itself supported by logic. You have simply buried your premises under so many layers of "facts" you hope you will never have to face them.
There is a difference between intuition and superstition. The Choice Axiom, for instance, without which much of mathematics disappears, is (at least in practice) accepted without proof. Even in the presence of Zorn's lemma which is vastly less intuitive than the Choice Axiom, but which has been shown to be equivalent. But acceptance of the Choice Axiom without proof is completely different from binding one's self to superstitous nonsense about ghosts, holy or otherwise.
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
And, you do :)
Just like if you look at things closely enough you see that stuff is really mostly nothing - e.g. [link|http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/scanning-tunneling-microscopes.html|I'm not touching this keyboard], the electron wave functions that are part of "me" are repelling the electron wave functions of this keyboard thingy. Rutherford showed that atoms are [link|http://www.chemsoc.org/timeline/pages/1911.html|mostly empty space].
You're right that it's hard, and perhaps impossible, to construct a logical framework that doesn't involve some basic assumptions. An important one in our understanding of the universe is that the same physical laws apply everywhere. We have no way to prove that, but assume it to construct a framework to understand our surroundings. So far, it has been a pretty good assumption.
As you say, it's important to realize the limitations of our understanding, but to argue (as some - not here - do) that because we can't prove everything we can't prove anything is sophistry.