Skeptical Scenarios vs Real World

What makes it so that we can reasonably conclude that we live in a real world other than something like a dream or an illusion created by out minds? Should we be worried that we live in a illusion created by our minds, aka solipsism? 

The question here involves the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.

Everyone holds one side or the other on the issue of metaphysical primacy. There are no other options. One must choose either (1) the primacy of existence, which means existence ranks first (is primary) before anything else, or (2) the primacy of consciousness, which means consciousness is primary and outranks existence. Intellectually speaking, there is no middle ground.

The best and shortest philosophical definition of an axiom I have found is a proposition so basic that defeats its opponents by the fact they have to accept and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. The most fundamental, irreducible, and absolute axiom states simply: existence exists. Any attempt to deny this two-word proposition requires the acceptance of the existence of the words used in the refutation and, therefore, falls of its own weight.

The above is the metaphysical concept of the primacy of existence. 

I illustrated this concept in my book God on Trial, both to the jury in the courtroom and outside of court.

Those who hold the opposing view that consciousness precedes existence want the faculty of consciousness not to be a tool used to study reality and learn, but to create existence. 

Some people never learn one cannot fake or cheat reality and what they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness and are unable to deal with what they face in life. By refusing to recognize existence for what it is, they live with existence for it is not and suffer the consequences. However, this is a psychological issue, not a philosophical one. 

A common definition of schizophrenia is a loss of contact with reality and believing fantasy and delusion is real. When people depart too much from reality in their actions, they are diagnosed as people with schizophrenia. It is a spectrum disorder.

To avoid any erroneous thinking or schizophrenia, keep in mind that existence precedes consciousness because being conscious means being aware of something that exists. Therefore, for there to be a “pure” consciousness (such as Kant or Berkeley argue), that consciousness must first be aware of the existence of itself. The consciousness must be aware something exists, itself, before it can be aware of anything else. Ergo, existence precedes consciousness.

Every entity exists as something. Moreover, every something behaves according to its identity, not according to the desires of some consciousness. Consciousness is the faculty of awareness, to be aware of that which exists. It is the power to grasp, find out, and discover the things that exist. It has no power to alter or control existents within existence. 

You are making a distinction where none is warranted. What we call the "real world" is what we experience. If it is an illusion created by our minds, then all the same "rules" apply, i.e., we need to eat, sleep, and pay our taxes. Nothing changes, so nothing to be "worried" about. If you are suggesting we can break the rules (e.g., we can stop eating) or somehow "wake up" from this illusion or escape (Matrix style) then this ranges from unfalsifiable (if people who escape cannot interact with people still trapped) to something never proven false (if people who escape are claimed to interact with people still trapped) , despite repeated attempts, so there is no evidence for it and therefore, unreasonable to consider a probability.

Interesting philosophical question, but really not related to fallacies (even though I did suggest this is a distinction without a difference ).

Obviously, this is a question philosophers have discussed for centuries.    If this is meant as a fallacy question—is it inherently fallacious to believe the world out there is real—I think it’s safe to conclude that doesn’t commit any fallacy.    

Is there a specific philosophical argument you’re thinking of that you’re asking has a fallacy?

For example, philosopher George Berkeley argued that things like apples or oranges existed only as ideas in our mind, but not as material things in the way normally believed.   His idea was mocked by Samuel Johnson, who kicked a stone and famously said “I refute you thus.”  
I would say Johnson’s rebuttal was the ultimate begging the question

I don't see any fallacy here at all. It's more of a philosophical question.

I think it's unlikely we are experiencing a dream or an illusion. Is it likely that that world's 8 billion are all  experiencing an illusion? That's another way to look at it.

Hi, Isaiah!

      The question commits the complex question fallacy. If I understand the question correctly, you are assuming that it is reasonable to conclude that you are experiencing a real world and not a dream or fabrication of your mind (then going on to ask what makes this reasonable.) But this assumption is controversial and frequently simply false. Your post struck me because I am a lucid dreamer. It is reasonable sometimes to believe that you are dreaming and unreasonable to believe that you are not. Several hours per week (when in REM sleep), what you are experiencing is a dream. Dream experiences are so vivid that, for the typical person, it is only once you have awoken that you regard in hindsight the experience as having been a dream. While having the dream, you take for granted so strongly that you are not in a dream that you remain non-lucid no matter how bizarrely the dream unfolds.

      Though we can stay in a dream for awhile, we do not exactly live in a dreamworld/illusion. We are awake most of the time, in an external world. Concluding this is not, for me at least, a deep and timeless philosophical issue requiring books and lectures and a Nobel prize opportunity. Again, asking how we know we are not in a dream is (or at least in several cases is) a fallacious question. I guess that most philosophers are not lucid dreamers and so do not catch their fallacy when asking audiences this popular opening question. You are in fact dreaming a decent amount of the time. Many acts that are possible in dreams are impossible in real life, such as breathing with your nose pinched and mouth closed or passing your index finger straight through the palm of your other hand. Attempting these acts and either failing or succeeding is one procedure to help you discern dreams from reality. I have performed them, succeeded, and become lucid in dreams many times. (Its a bit more complicated a process than that, though.) Anyways, you must intentionally ask yourself whether you are dreaming, rather than, as your question indicates, assuming day in and day out that you are awake. As a lucid dreamer, I genuinely advise that you should ask yourself right now.

      That is the fallacy and that is how you can reasonably sometimes conclude that you are not in a dream.

Thank you, Isaiah

From, Kaiden