Yes, I wasn't really addressing those points. It's a bit pedantic to state that an axiom isn't a fact, as, while that's largely correct, it hampers communication.

Regarding your other points, I don't disagree per se, though you could make the argument that there is a substrate of existence that humans have sufficient intellect to accurately model.

If so, it isn't necessarily completely implausible that we'd be able to predict the goals of a superior intellect by assuming that it has to play by the same rules, and will be merely be superior at playing by those constraints. As such, as we could determine the goals, we needent determine the mechanisms to make accurate claims about the end result of what a superior intellect might achieve.

It's also possible that we simply understand nothing and are too limited to ever grasp anything beyond a certain point, in which case this entire argument is pointless.