Perhaps try to analyze your position using rationalism as opposed to trying to validate empiricism with empiricism. If you want to know why you can trust your senses as being accurate (or at least sometimes accurate), then try to not use your senses - simply reason - and see if your position still holds. Foundationalism is a strong philosophical position, in so much as it can correct and remain accountable for itself much easier than the others; however it struggles with the original basis for belief (namely self-evident truths).
As was addressed earlier, one must first determine the meaning of 'truth' and secondly assert what classifies something as being self-evident. Genkaus provided the axioms of existence to which you inferred about the objective nature of a truth claim. You've already made the assumption that truth has an objective nature - but what gives you this justification? (This I suppose brings us back to your original question about justification of fundamental beliefs.)
As was addressed earlier, one must first determine the meaning of 'truth' and secondly assert what classifies something as being self-evident. Genkaus provided the axioms of existence to which you inferred about the objective nature of a truth claim. You've already made the assumption that truth has an objective nature - but what gives you this justification? (This I suppose brings us back to your original question about justification of fundamental beliefs.)
Brevity is the soul of wit.
