None of those assertions refutes Berkeley's Argument. You are avoiding the issue by repeating Samuel Johnson's naive realism. The issue is human perception and belief. You say “we know matter exist(s)” which is of the form “I believe matter exists, therefore matter exists.” But you don’t perceive matter at all, so your belief that matter exists is mere assertion without basis in perception or, as Hume later showed, in reason. Your beliefs do not make something exist. That is the core of Berkeley’s argument, the limits of human perception and beliefs. That a falling tree hurts your head doesn’t prove matter. It only proves that one idea is related to another idea. All of science does not in any way blunt Berkeley’s argument.