I'm not sure how any of those things lead to the next thing. Mathematical/logical truths don't rely on the physical universe. Therefor the universe is contingent? Therefor "explicit" atheists look a bit silly? I don't understand.

Define explicit atheist. Is it basically a form of rigid empiricism?

Math is a tool made by man to see how big a log is. Math is as much a key to the physical universe as a screwdriver is.

I'm not exactly sure how you are tying these concepts to the notions of religions, but I [i]would[/i] like to point out that explicit atheists hardly need any additional help to make themselves look silly.

If there is one thing I have learned about math, it is that it is imperfect.

While there is a raging debate on whether mathematics or sheer logic relies on the universe or is simply a self-contained construct in itself... ...I don't think it has any bearing on religion whatsoever?

What you're touching on here is epistemology. What you're trying to distinguish are two types of knowledge. We classify knowledge into two categories: •a priori •a posteriori [i]A priori[/i] knowledge is independent of experience. E.g. 1 + 1 = 2 or the statement "All bachelors are unmarried." Knowledge classified into this category is always true and does not depend on our experience for us to know. I don't need to go out into the world and find every bachelor to know that every bachelor is unmarried. [i]A posteriori[/i] knowledge is dependent on our experience of it. An example of this would be the statement "Some bachelors are unhappy." We cannot know whether this statement is true or not until we've polled every bachelor. I don't believe that a priori knowledge is dependent on the physical laws of our universe. I do agree, however, that our universe is contingent, but I don't think that a priori knowledge can really help us deduce that. A posteriori knowledge, however, does (e.g. evidence that points to the Big Bang Theory, the most accepted explanation of the beginning of our universe by physicists and other scientists). Thankfully, you're logical enough to see that just because it is most probable that our universe is contingent, it does not necessitate the Christian god is the one who created it, or any other divine deity or even something that was sentient. Also, when it comes to mathematics, I would be skeptical of the posts that say our universe's mathematics or logic would be invalid or could be invalid in another universe, if they do exist. 1 + 1 always will equal 2. To reduce this, I would ask whether the concept of "true/false" could be different. The answer is no. Another example would be existence vs. non-existence. This is a basic element of mathematics. There is no in-between. If someone does argue that 1 + 1 could equal something other than 2 in another universe, then they are changing the definitions of what those things are, and thus would not be talking about the same thing.

It's my understanding that mathematical truths [i]do[/i] in fact rely on the physical laws of the universe, in the sense that science has not excluded the possibility of there being other universes with different physical constants and different mathematical truths from our own. Things in math can only be said to be absolutely true in our universe because of the fundamental underpinnings that comprise it.

but what about the cosine of the zamboozle zibity spaghettiboo bop?