Well the immediately obvious problem there is that your position — indeed all faith-based positions, do not in fact provide the answers to anything, least of all everything, and there are myriad 'loose ends' flapping around all over the place.

Consider the following hypothetical. I've had it privately revealed to me, by the ghost that never lies, that when we die our consciousness floats away from our physical body, up into the sky, and comes to rest on the surface of Jupiter, where it spends the rest of time playing Scrabble with Darth Vader. How would you begin to disprove my truth-claim, without also providing the perfect argument against your own faith-based position, that Yahweh created the entire universe with Christians in mind?

The problem with faith-based positions is not that they lack cultural reference points, or traditional values. To throw these aspects of religion away would be a mistake no atheist I know of would condone or advocate, precisely because the best aspects of Christianity are the perfect argument in favour of humanism. The problem with faith based positions, is that they cannot tell us anything which is objectively true, because they're derived from the confirmation biases which those who hold them just so happen to have for certain aspects of reality.

For this very simple reason they can't all be right, be they can all be wrong, and without empiricism and logic, we have no way of telling the difference between the ones which are true and the ones which are false, without immediately disproving the validity of our own faith-based claims.

Science works because the opinion or subjective experience of the individual scientist is completely irrelevant. It's what she can repeatedly demonstrate to be objectively valid which counts. If we adopted a faith-based position about gravity, for example, we would be obliged to consider everyone's opinion on why objects fall to the ground as equally likely to be true, as those which are based upon repeated observations, experiment and logic. This would leave us completely incapable of telling the difference between fiction and fact.

So while there is nothing wrong, per-se, with holding the faith-based view that the universe was instigated by the particular deity towards which you just so happen to have a cultural and emotional bias, you have to also recognise that it is these very biases which make you less likely to accept the worth of any evidence that you are simply wrong, than someone who holds the scientific method in higher regard than they do their own personal opinions.

It is not that gods are improbable but not impossible which makes the prime mover argument more or less likely to be true or false, it is that it tells us nothing which we can test, while contradicting all the existing evidence, which is objectively true. If that evidence expands, at some point in the future, so that we can be sure beyond any doubt that the universe was created by what would seem to us like a God, we would no longer require faith in order to believe in God's basic existence. And since without faith gods do not exist, proof that a specific God of a specific religion exists would lead inextricably to a paradox of its own making: Proof that Yahweh exists, would prove that He does not.

The only way that we avoid paradoxes of this nature, is to eliminate entirely anything which cannot be falsified. Science does not deal in absolute truths, it deals with evidence which has yet to be shown false. That's why we call them scientific theories, not scientific hunches, or scientific certainties. Science is always open to the possibility everything we know is completely false. The only thing which is required in order to disprove an existing theory, is evidence which exceeds existing knowledge while accounting for those same observed phenomena with greater detail.

If simply saying "God did it" added this greater detail and clarity, we would use it all the time. But it is a conclusion drawn from its own proposition (which is what we mean by circular reasoning) to say this, without immediately recognising that it places the burden of proof upon the shoulders of those who say it, not those who do not. It is not a question of proving Yahweh does not exist, it is a question of proving He does. Without that, we cannot know anything about which gaps we're inserting Him into, or why it should be that Yahweh provides better answers than an infinite number of other possible deities, towards whose basic existence you are just as much of an atheist as I am towards Yahweh, and for exactly the same reasons.

Remember, if I simply adopt your worldview for arguments sake, no matter what you say in response to this, I can always claim the ghost that never lies told me in advance what you would say, placing me under no obligation to prove how he communicates with me, and in a way which I know to be true. How do you show that the ghost who never lies is imaginary, without making the perfect argument against your own position?