Um... Alright. Which are you refuting between these two statements.
That which holds a property outside the properties of non-existence exists
or
Thought/thinking holds properties outside the properties of non-existence
or something else?
I'm "refuting" that the cogito sum is in any way an immediate certainty. It's supposed to be a doubtless proposition, when there are about a half-dozen serious objections that call it into question, and cannot be sufficiently opposed. That's all.
Well, I'd say any perception of the world that holds no properties that base reality does not hold is true.
You realize that this is just a reformulation of the claim "The perception which corresponds with 'base reality' is true," right? It doesn't do anything to answer the question of what base reality is.
Science comes into it because science is a means towards discarding properties that do not fit with reality, hence the scientific account will move closer to being a true account as time goes on.
You continue to make circular arguments. Why is science able to "pick out" true properties from false properties? What are some examples of "false" properties?
[Just as a heads up, the word "property" is loaded in the history of philosophy, and has to do with an Aristotelian metaphysic that modern science doesn't like to associate with. It may be better to replace it with another term to avoid confusion.]
...as that which is not true is usual less useful than that which is, and that which is useful can often be applied to discover truth (in theory).
Making this probabilistic claim requires a root conception of reality (what you call "base reality") with which to make comparisons. I'd like to know what this base reality is like. What is the thing-in-itself?
Of course, if base reality doesn't exist then nothing is true, and if we cannot access it then we cannot discover truth. Hence, relevance.
Again, you've yet to explain why scientific understanding corresponds to "base reality."
Science is one possible construct that leads to truth, but of the methods available to us I believe it is the most useful for discovering truth.
[...]
And of course I can't know it to be the best,
This is an on-its-face contradiction. Not only are you not explaining why science is true, you're also not explaining why it's "probably" true.
I claim science to be strong because if any of the four assumptions I made do not hold, then objective reality is impossible to access.
Another circular argument, because you're defining "objective" as scientific; reformulated, you're saying that if science isn't true, then your scientific worldview isn't true. Sounds right to me!
Besides, why would you assume a position about truth to avoid difficult questions? Truth demands that we be honest.
Objective reality must exist for subjective reality to exist,
False. Perspectival truths, by definition, do not appeal to an underlying totality.
The bolded section is what I'm objecting to. Because adding god to the equation doesn't change the situation at all, even mentioning it isn't something you should do when questioning things.
Are you really incapable of assuming a position you don't believe? I'm an atheist myself, but I can still dissect and evaluate arguments that invoke God. Don't be so obtuse.
Assuming an intelligible cosmos by assuming an intelligible god really doesn't add anything to the discussion.
You've missed the point of the argument- again. I am assuming that a God does not exist, and then using it to show that the combination of no God and an intelligible cosmos is a contradiction.
--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9