No, they are not. There is no connection at all between a pile of stones and a geographical location. But to say that you see is simply to say that you see. There are no stages here at all. I see = I see something.
On the contrary—saying that you see, but it is really not there, is already an obviously unnecessary assumption according to Occam's razor.
What do you think?

I wrote my opinion, and I do not see any point in repeating it again. I assume that if you think about it again, you will see the comparison.

I thought about it again, but I still have questions, and I would be happy if you could point me to where the flaw is.

What is your basis for assuming that something created by chance means I cannot rely on what was created by chance? It sounds to me like that itself is the argument from complexity, no? And if so, can't one ask: but the fact is that it was created? The fact is that I see? Exactly like the argument regarding evolution—maybe it is not probable, but the fact is that it happened.

Indeed, the assumption that something complex was not created by chance is the argument from complexity. But the claim that even if it was created, one still cannot rely on it—that is the revealing argument. What is the question?

Thank you, Rabbi. I understand now. So I still think this is not a proof, but for a different reason: the atheist will tell you—actually, you are right—logically it is not reasonable to place trust in something that was created by chance, and for that reason it is not reasonable to trust the senses—but what alternative do I have?! This is how I experience the world! If my entire being is that I know the world through the sensory system—there is no other way for me to experience it—then this is how I experience it. And my sensory system, in the meantime, gives me a not-bad life—so this is how I will continue to conduct myself. Any other conduct would still be within the framework of my awareness, so I have no way to escape this…. And even if you answer him: but admit that before I asked you this, you did trust your sensory system—he will answer: experience caused me to believe… but really—logically there is no reason to believe, but on the other hand there is no way out of it.

Absolutely correct. That is exactly what I wrote there. You are simply restating the idea of a revealing proof, which by definition one can always evade by giving something up. Its purpose is only to present the atheist with a choice between two possibilities: either he gives up his essential trust in the senses (and can adopt them merely for convenience or out of habit), or he admits that he believes in God. It proves to him that he cannot trust the senses and remain an atheist. Now let him choose.