Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

On a general basis, no, an argument is not evidence of a claim about material reality (or natural reality, or whatever you want to call your made-up "simulation" land). As for the premises, your first one fails due to fallacious logic (specifically misplacing the burden of proof).

you misunderstand the intent of the first premise. i'm not saying 'you can't prove it wrong therefore it's true.' i'm saying 'it's impossible to prove it wrong, therefore it's unreasonable to presume it's impossible.' this simply follows, the definition of reasonable is a position that can be reasoned. if you can't prove it false, then you can't possibly reason it's impossible thus it's not reasonable to presume as such. this makes it reasonable to presume solipsism is possible as per premise 2.

Translation: the argument depends on presuppositions that it hopes to pass off as facts without anyone noticing.

in what world does 'introspection' translate to 'presuppositions'?

No, it's invalid because it's based on false logic

what 'false logic' is there?

It's mere speculation, unsupported by evidence

based on false logic and speculation? which premises are speculative?

So the only thing that exists is a mind and the thoughts it produces, and it's producing a simulation of a mind and the thoughts it produces...and now you're going in circles.

how about the only thing that exists is a mind, and produces lesser minds from his thoughts. and he produces a simulation of an apparent physical world.

To "map out a world to resemble something else," you need an existing model

perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part. I meant, he mapped out a world in likeness to a physical one.' the world he mapped out of course would be completely fabricated as there is no actual physical world to look at.

*sigh* I was really looking forward to meeting an online theist who doesn't devolve into a condescending little prick when his butt gets hurt over how bad his reasoning is.

except you didn't address my reasoning, rather just criticized the conclusion. at least, not until this later post.

Regardless of whether your conclusion follows from your premises

wait... what was that I heard? regardless? so i'm not using false logic after all?

It is not logically sound to produce an unfalsifiable assertion

so by falsifiable you mean... what exactly? because making an argument automatically makes it falsifiable by the condition of debunking the premises or the validity of the logic. I can only assume you mean empirically verifiable in which case I would have to whole heartedly disagree with you. not everything can be empirically verified.