Reality is an Absolute

I would like to point out I was not intending to redefine any of the terms that you defined except Absolute. The definitions Con gave were all correct, I only felt that the use of Absolute could have been clarified, which I did. I apologize for this confusion and will refrain from do it again. Con states "we perceive reality 100% through our senses and thought processes. As everything is being processed through our brains, we have no way to objectively step outside of that personal process to 'compare notes' with anyone else. Just as you can't step into my body to perceive reality from my point of view, I can't step into your body to perceive reality from your point of view." (sorry that I used this entire quote)This is not the argument at hand, but this is all true. The argument at hand is whether or not reality is objective, independent and an absolute. Our perceptions are based off of reality, to perceive something would require that it exists to perceive it. That does not mean that everyone has their own reality, it means that they all perceive the same reality differently. This does not mean one has to perceive the objects directly I was not stating that our perceptions are objective, but reality is.Con then asks "If you remove all perception of reality, does it still exist, and how can you show that it does without perceiving it?" Con is asking me how to prove ("to show") that reality would exist if there were no perceptions. This is illogical. You cannot prove reality because to prove reality would require the use of reality and logic, (which is also based on reality) reality must already exist to prove anything. Then one would use reason to derive ideas from their perceptions.Con then states: "By definition, then, reality is defined subjectively for each person." Again, as I stated before, this is false. It is not reality that is defined, it is their perception that is defined. (whether their perception be false or maimed is not the point, one must use reason to deal with their perceptions)Con then states "If there is an absolute, objective, external reality, we have no method to test it. Without a method to objectively and empirically test it, it remains in the same category as Gods, spirit, and invisible pink unicorns."This is stating that because man does not perceive an objective reality, there must not be one. False, Man perceives an objective reality, his senses/perceptions are subjective. Man's goal should be to view reality as objectively as he physically can by using reason to form ideas. Scientists must utilize an objective reality when performing any test whatsoever, if they derive anything based on fallacies or illogical assumptions then their tests would be incorrect and could be refuted. So man has every capability of utilizing his senses to perceive reality so long as he uses reason (and subsequently logic) to derive his answers.Con then adds a whole thing about words. Which is unnecessary but I believe I can refute it. Let it be known though that this is not apart of the argument. Since there are a multitude of languages there has to be something that connects all of them, something Objective. One cannot "Speak French in English." Because they are based off of the same thing, reality. " 'Chat' (Pronounced "Shah" in English) and 'Cat' " are the same thing and are each culture's way of expressing what that thing is based off of reality. It's not that there are base words, it is that there is a 'reality' which those words are based on.Finally, I did not require the axiom, the axiom is required, regardless if I require it. I do however assert that 'Existence exists" is an axiom.