> the concept of proof is pseudo-philosophical. then your argument and even nonsense arguments are identical.  > prove that the whole world is not an imitation... sure, you can have certain assumptions in your philosophy rather then going full solispism but generally you want to keep assumptions to a minimum for obvious reasons.  > this logic leads to paradoxes to which there is no answer. a paradox doesn't invalidate logic, it just shows weaknesses in our understanding of logic. for example, the single rice grain makes no noise while many rice grains do make a noise was a paradox but we actually know why that is the case now with physics. so just by saying "paradoxes exist" doesn't dismiss logic. it simply points out errors in our current understanding that could be investigated.  the rest of what you said were still just statements. there is no argument or thought put behind it.  for example: premise 1: causing unnecessary harm to others is morally wrong. premise 2: lying to someone often causes unnecessary harm (e.g., loss of trust, emotional distress). conclusion: therefore, lying is morally wrong unless it prevents greater harm. see how this is an argument in which people can debate the premises? you have no premises.  for example, you just say "we are not animals - every second of our lives we behave like humans... that is, supporting artificial ethics and principles." where is the premise? where is the conclusion from those premises? these are just statements presented as facts but are they facts? take: "every second of our lives we behave like humans" is this falsifiable? no. this is just an opinion presented as fact with no argument to back it up.  if you're a smart guy and you want to do philosophy. by all means do philosophy but what you're currently doing is not philosophy.
United States