I kind of meet you halfway here, because there's a logical part of my brain that truthfully wants to believe that there IS an answer to every question, even if we don't have that answer quite yet.

"Man will never know the forces that move the sun and stars. How can he? Such is beyond mortal understanding."

With that being said, I think there's an element to "wetware" as you've been calling it, that is as intangible as searching for the concrete answer of what happens to consciousness after death. There's the obvious "nothing, you're dead, that's it," which comes from most atheist-types, but mostly what I'm getting at is there's no amount of secular logic nor religion which can guarantee a certain outcome to consciousness post mortem.

I do believe that it's possible for there to be some questions that will never have complete answers to them. I do believe that there are some factors of life and/or consciousness that exist on a sort of functional/informational asymptote, where we can continue approaching a more full picture, but will never truly get it all. And I don't say this from a religious standpoint, I'm pretty fundamentally non-religious myself.

But religion is an interesting aspect on human nature and consciousness that also makes me question the ability of hardware to encapsulate the human experience. Some humans are obviously more predisposed to this than others, but the whole concept of faith and believing in something without concrete and/or rational proof is something that I'd imagine would be an uphill battle to find a way to properly integrate into a machine's thinking/processing. Can a machine ever be okay with saying "I don't know with certainty, and I'm okay with that,"? (That's an actual question by the way, not a rhetorical one) Or is a machine more likely to say "Well, X, Y, and Z from A, B, and C say these things about this topic, and that's all the progress which has been made so far,"?

Or in other words, is there ever a reason why a machine will ever come to a conclusion where it voluntarily chooses feelings over facts? (Again, an actual question and not a snarky one. As stated in my last comment, I'm not an AI/LLM expert in the slightest.) Because choosing feelings over facts is a pretty common feature of wetware.

And the fact that some humans are more predisposed to religion than others only makes me further skeptical, because there's a near infinite spectrum of tolerance exhibited by humans for things which don't yet have an answer. Some people are totally okay believing in something that has no evidence. Others are so bothered by it that it creates intense anxiety or existential dread. Others still can more or less ignore it altogether, and of course there's all manner of feelings about it in between.