And as I've explained repeatedly, the assumptions you've made are irrelevant, because they're rejected by reason. I've "picked" on them repeatedly. In fact, let's go over them again!
1 + 2) You yourself have accepted that we can't know that reality exists independently of subjective experience to it, a correlate of which is that we can't know if our subjective experience has existence. Reason rejects both propositions.
How? Also, the fact that we cannot know something doesn't mean that we should just give up on it. Of the paths I can take to try to attain truth, only making those assumptions leads me anywhere. If I don't assume existence, then I can't pursue any truth regarding it, so I make those assumptions so trying to gain truth is possible. Even if I'm wrong and reality doesn't exist in any way, then I lose nothing because I get the exact same amount of truth. Zero. I'm not making these assumptions because they are safe to make, but rather to have a starting point. Someone trying to, say, invent a cold fusion reactor has to first assume that making a cold fusion reactor is possible even if it isn't. Because otherwise they wouldn't be trying to invent it in the first place.
3 + 4) Both these propositions assume a stable and intelligible physical order; in other words, we're doing that "metaphysics" thing you dislike so much. Not only have you failed to provide any account of why this is true, but, if we assume that God does not exist, such an assumption is a contradiction.
Stop trying to add god into a contradiction he's already part of. And I cannot give you any account of why it is true, hence why it's an assumption in the first place. Assumptions by definition are not something we can demonstrate, otherwise they wouldn't be assumptions in the first place. I don't know of any mechanism that could conceivably result in an intelligible universe. Does that matter? No. No it does not. Because my own lack of knowledge isn't demonstrative of anything at all! And anyways, I'm making these assumptions because if they are not true I simply cannot pursue truth in any way. That's the core of the assumptions.
What you're doing is assuming falsehoods in an attempt to talk about "truth." Does this seem like a fair thing to do?
What you're claiming by saying those are falsehoods is that you KNOW that my assumptions are false. So, how do you know that reality is absolutely subjective, that my perceptions do not correspond to reality, that the universe is not ordered, and that truth is inconstant?
It's... a bit complicated. And metaphysical. Let's just table this part of the conversation, okay? There's a lot else going on as it is, and this isn't central to anything I'm arguing.
Fine.
I'm invoking God because God offers a potential solution to the problem of cosmic instability. If the "default" position is no God, and we don't "assume" that God exists (which I did just as a clarification), then you're still left with the contradiction. Could you address this?
The thing that I've been trying to say is that god is not a potential solution in the first place. If god exists, he is part of reality. To say it is only possible for reality to be intelligible if god exists is to say that reality can only be intelligible if a very specific portion of reality is intelligible first, which leads to me asking why god is intelligible. Following your logic, god would then need a god if its own. And so on recursively. In essence, god is utterly disconnected to that contradiction because invoking god creates the same contradiction. Meaning discussion of that contradiction flows the same way whether or not you add god to the mix, meaning it is simplest and best to not bring god in at all.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn