I agree with the idea of I think therefore I am though. You COULD say, "How do I know if my contemplating my being an illusion is not just part of the illusion itself?" That's what I was saying about the more nihilistic approach. Usually somebody might say "None of this is real," but in order for there to be an illusion, there must be a reality to generate it. My idea is that the very definition of physical matter is that its just constant illusions, things and places made up by other beings imaginations, whether these beings are gods or humans or what not.

If you are trying to prove that there is no reality and that there ALL is illusion, you must prove there is a reality in which the illusion has to be generated from. But then again, on the other hand, if you are trying to prove some suicidal nut job that thinks all life is non-existent, you really can't unless they want to because any so called proof you present to him or her they can just say is another illusion. So, in order to prove all we experience is illusion, you need to prove that there is indeed a reality, and in order to prove there is indeed a reality, you must present something that is illusionary enough where you can indeed differentiate reality from illusion. In order to prove one, you must prove the other.

I think reality is just constant illusions being created by God, spirits, humans, animals, and the like because all physical matter and invention is other beings who are themselves creations of another being's imagination constantly creating things from their own imagination.

The only wall I ran into was how do you apply such an idea to monotheistic theology, like mine, in which there is no generator for the supreme one and only God. this would mean that God is only thing that's real and I can accept him/her/it as a SUPREME reality but not the ONLY reality. And how can you word it in a way that makes sense cause anyone could just dismiss evidence after evidence after evidence. Example: I say this object is real and somebody else says it isn't, I present my "proof" that is real, they dismiss the proof as an illusion as well,  I present "proof" for the proof, and they stil dismiss as illusion, and we keep going and going until we just get tired of presenting proofs of proofs of proofs of proofs of proofs of proofs of proofs of proofs of that so called "real/illusionary," object. So, maybe one of the hardest things to proove is that proof can even exst.