nature.

I can answer all the things you mentioned in your last post up to and including the descartes line, like this.

If you can not disprove that it, then its a possibility.

Disprove the dreamers theory.

And for the last time, please follow me, we do not have any facts. You do not have any facts.

Also,

You just made an assertion. Now you have to back it up with evidence. How do you know it could possibly constructed by someones dream? Possibilities aren't a given. If you say that it is, then show me the universal law that shows that.
Ok, now take that EXACT SAME QUESTION, and apply it to your theory of God existing. Show me a universal law that shows that. Not theories, not coincidences, a UNIVERSAL LAW.

You wont find one, but that doesnt mean you are disproven. Just means there isnt a found law yet. It does make you look like someone who is purposely trying to put as much limiters onto something to make it impossible to be true.

We have no evidence against the dreamer theory. None. The entire idea behind it, is much similar to the idea of a god, as in its unproveable without said entity showing us. You cant prove god exists, I cant prove this is a dream. I can show you examples such as you have shown us with just as much ease, because there are alot of crazy things that happen on this planet that according to science just shouldnt happen, which could only happen in a dream. Bumblebee's anyone?

Thats the hilariously ironic part of this entire conversation we have been having. You are making all the arguements that someone would make against your statement that God exists. And they work so perfectly, in every way. The difference is, I have not once stated I believe that we are part of a dream, just that it was a possibility. Im not stating anything is the case, so if I cant stand up to your questions and demands for you to accept it, thats ok. You, on the other hand, are stating that something is the case, is a fact, that God exists. In this, you are unlike my stance, because you have to be able to stand up to those very same questions, demands, and scrutiny. And none of your arguement really stands up to yourvery own questions.