What the God debate is really about

[Angrboda]

Our senses do not deceive us.

Technically, this one is not self-evident; however, further reflection reveals that it must be the case for there to be knowledge. Since all knowledge comes from reason applied to experience, it follows that no knowledge could be gained if sense data did not correspond with reality. Illusions happen when people misinterpret what their senses tell them. For example, everyone knows a straight stick looks bent when placed halfway into water. Someone could interpret this sense data to mean that the stick is actually bent. The sense data is not wrong; the viewer is merely mistaken about what he thinks he sees. By adding his store of sense data he can come to know about light refraction. If sense data was deceptive then he could not compare former experiences with current and future ones to distinguish between how things appear and how they actually are. Illusions also tell us not only about what we see, but how our brains interpret what we see. A correct interpretation of sense data, one that accounts for how things appear AND the viewer to which things appear gives us knowledge about both.

I think you're confusing self-refuting with self-evident in much of your list. However, this one stuck out. Since you're a dualist, the cause of our behaviors is not an empirical fact. The truth of what we perceive occurs in an other-world to which we have no sense data as to its substance and operation. So you can never close the loop here as you can never have sense access to both the perceived and that which perceives. It would seem a necessity of your worldview that true knowledge of sense data is impossible. I don't see how you can get around that.