[MikkoFinell]

You have not made a convincing counter argument.

The set of things humans are in principle capable of understanding at least slightly are covered by the analogy about dogs. Try to imagine the relative complexity of concepts, for example how much more complex the concept of calculus is than the trick to sit when given a verbal command. Now imagine some concept that is equally more complex compared to the most advanced human math/physics as calculus is to the sit-trick. There is some scale of complexity where analogies break down, and even though they convey some concept that is familiar to the audience, its connection to the actual matter is so vague and strenuous that you haven't actually explained anything. There may be facts about the universe that are completely counter-intuitive, and the understanding of which depend on a regression of trillions of other counter-intuitive facts and processes.

We already see computer assisted mathematical proofs heading in the direction where there are simply too many steps for a human to understand. And thats merely us scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg. At some point, I believe, computers will generate new maths such that not only is the proof incomprehensible, but the result too. There is no reason to believe that the universe is simple enough that humans can understand everything.