What is a "construct," and what is "base reality"? Logic is in many respects more base than sense experience, as one can always be doubted and the other can never be doubted. The scientific method is also itself a construct, one which approaches the world through a very specific lens.
A construct is something that can only exist relative to the existence of something that thinks. Language, science, philosophy, and even logic are constructs. Base reality is that which exists independent of thought. It is of course, not possible to know if anything is part of base reality other than the thoughts you have access to. Also, logic cannot be doubted in terms of logic. That's not saying much (because I certainly can't conceive of any other way to approach it), but it's a point worth making.
Science itself is a construct given that it most certainly is not something that exists independently of thought. It's a method that, after assuming the universe is not a construct and that it is ordered (neither of which are certain, but are more or less required to be made in order to pursue truth as something other than a function of thought), can be applied to anything that can be observed directly or indirectly to learn the properties of what you are observing. As you learn properties, you learn truth.
Not quite. It would be impossible to discover objective truth, but perspectival truths would certainly be on the table. This, incidentally, is where I stand: that science is a perspective, and that it can provide scientific truths, but that these truths are no "more" or "less" true simply because they are scientific.
Alright, sure. However, there is no actual way of determining the difference between objective truth and perspectival truth. You have to make certain assumptions if you want to even attempt it. While it is true that there are "truths" other than scientific, those either do not try to discover objective truth, or do so in a manner that could be used to justify saying anything is objectively true. Science is an extremely powerful tool in that the assumptions it makes are only the ones needed to establish the existence of objective truth, and it produces exactly the same results regardless of who applies it (assuming it is applied correctly of course).
...This is an entirely separate argument. This would be relevant if I postulated a God; since God was assumed to be nonexistent, I'm not sure of the relevance here.
So again, what compels the universe to be rationally intelligible without God? If you posit this as true, then it's true; but this is also true of God and any other proposition imaginable. If you care about the truth of the matter, then you won't simply assume what you're trying to prove.
Well, what I'm saying is you CANNOT use god to explain the ordering of the universe without digging yourself into a deeper hole, so it should be rejected as a hypothesis much the same as any other idea that explains nothing should be rejected. As far as what makes the universe ordered... I don't know. I can't know if it is ordered either. There is absolutely ZERO way to prove the universe is ordered. That doesn't matter though. God of the gaps is a terrible argument.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn