Evolution

I see this argument as being similar to the "How do we know we aren't living in 'The Matrix'?" argument. Which is answered by saying, "If there is a Matrix, show me, so that I can begin to have doubts about my experiences as they are." Until there is a broader context to put our current experiences in, we have no way of doubting our experiences.   

I think that if there was legitimate concern between dreams and reality, then we wouldn't call one thing a dream and the other reality. If there was in fact doubts about reality, we wouldn't have a way of distinguishing between the two.

If what you are saying is, "How do I know reality is not also a large dream which allows me to have smaller dreams within?" I would ask, what context are you referring to that gives you this inclination? Do you know of another alternative way of experiencing that you can reference, which will give legitimate doubt to the "reality" of which we all reference when we are distinguishing between dreams and reality? 

So, when you say, " I had no way to know that the events were just dream and not reality. It felt like it was real to me at the time. I have to consider that what I know as reality may just be an elaborate dream after all, or something else entirely that I am not able to comprehend." I want to ask, why is it when you tell me that you had this dream about the Earth departing from the solar system, you and I were both able to understand it was a dream? Mere reference to the dream denotes an actual difference. People don't say, "In the alternate and real life I live while I sleep." Instead, they say, "While I was sleeping, I had a dream. The dream felt real. But I woke up."

Does this jibe for you?

It is fine, but nothing you said changed my doubt of all that is, even if I do not have words to describe what all that is would be if it were not what it is.

This is no different to Descartes saying he can doubt his desk. I can hamster an eight mustache bright meta buckle potato monkey. 

"I can doubt existence" = I recognize existence with the expression of this sentence.

Language is triangulated between observers and the world. Discourse about the world is intersubjective. When you doubt existence, you implicitly recognize another language user and experiences of things. While the ability to lump words together allows you to give the impression that you are doubting this, you are using doubt in a strange way. 

Marcoxa, what is the name of this book?

here is a link to it. http://goo.gl/H5k6D