“There is a purity to logic, and the promise of an objective outcome, an unambiguous conclusion.” Yes but the conclusion can still be invalid. Of course I expect you would apply some sort of validation to the conclusion in each case.

Let’s examine a couple of syllogies and come to an unambiguous conclusion then.

All matter comes from pre-existing matter.
All physical things comprise matter.
All physical things come from pre-existing matter.

All physical things have a beginning and an end.
All objects in the universe are physical things.
All objects in the universe have a beginning and an end.

These are sound are they not?

Assuming they are we can conclude that all objects in the universe must have a beginning and there must have been objects that existed before their beginning.

So the classic problem we face, to which we do not have an answer, is: What existed before the first objects in the universe had their beginning?

Clearly (logically) whatever pre-existed the first physical things could not have been physical in nature.

Given this (clearly logical) conclusion if we are looking for an answer using physics we are in strife. Whatever caused the universe to come into being could not have been physical and so we cannot explain it using physical means.

I’ve heard some ridiculous theories from otherwise intelligent people like: there may be an infinite number of universes, or: the universe may be expanding and collapsing in an endless cycle. In themselves these theories are probably reasonable enough but they are to be ridiculed if one is to accept them as an argument against intelligent design.

Whatever the case, what we see now with our physical senses, and what we understand now with our physics, did not come from anything physical that can be explained by physics.

Given all of this, it takes more gullibility and blindness to accept any physical theory for the beginnings of the universe than it does to accept that there is a God that spoke it into existence.

You can argue that we do not understand it, but you cannot argue that intelligent design is an illogical stance I’m afraid.