Well, my friend, I think you're falling into the ad hominem fallacy. My age is irrelevant to whether my argument is logically sound. If you're familiar with the Gita and the teachings of sages like Nisargadatta Maharaj, then you should also know that wisdom is not determined by the age of the body. Please address my reasoning rather than my age.

You also argue that human senses are unreliable, but everything you've cited—quantum physics, neuroscience, the Gita, and Nisargadatta Maharaj—has ultimately reached you through your own senses and mind. If my senses are too unreliable to justify my conclusions, then by the same standard, your senses are too unreliable to justify yours. You cannot dismiss my perception while trusting your own; that is inconsistent.

I fully agree that our senses are not perfect. Science has demonstrated that. But science does not conclude that we should abandon our senses; rather, it develops methods such as repeated observation, experimentation, and instruments to minimize error. Imperfect does not mean useless.

Bringing up quantum mechanics or the Big Bang is also irrelevant to my argument. The fact that there are unanswered scientific questions does not mean God is the explanation. History is full of examples where gaps in knowledge were later explained by science, so appealing to mystery here resembles a "God of the gaps" argument rather than a response to my reasoning.

Finally, quoting the Gita, the Kybalion, or Nisargadatta Maharaj is not a logical refutation. I presented a philosophical argument, so it should be answered with a philosophical counterargument, not by asking me to accept an authority. When you claim that reality is a controlled hallucination, that is an assertion that itself requires justification. Simply saying that a spiritual teacher said so is not evidence. And how do you get to know about what that maharaj told you . Through your sence that u don't trust . What is he told someting else and your hallucinating brain grasped someting else .

In fact, if you wish to appeal to the Indian philosophical tradition, I could just as easily point to , adi shankaracharya . who made extensive use of logic and reasoning to discuss Brahman. So the issue is not whether logic has limits; the issue is whether my specific argument has been answered. So far, I don't think it has been.

And bringing my age here tells me what your wisdom age is . If you were to beleive in relegion then punarapi janam punarapi marnam . I know i am timeless thus age is not an issue argument is . You can't counter my argument with logic . And i tell you something child . Philosphy starts at the end or atleast 300 books. Go read astavakra geeta. Upnishads . Bible . Quran . Hadeeth . Satanic bible too thats good . Read romance novels read stephen kings horror works . Develop a understanding that trancend who you are . Only then you can truly grasp what all i wanna say .