Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's not that I just "assume" that materialism is correct; I've just been presented with loads of evidence to that effect and only empty talk to the contrary. Open the curtain and show me the Mind-Thing or admit that your Gaud is just as nebulous and unreasonable as the rest of them.

ok... i'm going to give one last shot at trying to show you the circularity of your logic by means of a comparative argument that you will definitely recognize as circular. if this doesn't work then my words are just falling on deaf ears.
Form
we have X, and think Y explains X.
Reason
because we have X.
This is begging the question.

Claim
first person- we have X (the experience a world) and think Y (the world is made of material substance that exists apart from experience).
second person- we have X (the bible) and think Y (everything it says is true).
Reason
first person- because we have evidence from X (the experience of a world).
second person- because it says so in X (the bible).

do you get it yet? observational evidence is evidence from experience... so it can't be used as evidence for why and how we experience. it's circular... it's question begging... it's fallacious...

Your only reason for attempting to forward a metaphysical claim about physical nature is to put your questions and assertions beyond the scope of evidence because as soon as evidence is brought up, you crumble.

again... it is not beyond the scope of evidence if you use the actual definition of evidence rather than your skewed made up definition... evidence- "something which shows that something else exists or is true..." do you see observable in that definition there? what about empirical? no? ok. moving on.

Evidence cannot be refuted or explained away

except by counter evidence... or by providing a better explanation for it...

so you have endeavored to disallow all physical evidence from the discussion and create something whose real existence can be asserted without the need for evidence.

i'm sorry... I didn't create anything... I haven't unilaterally 'disallowed' empirical evidence... it's simply fallacious to infer the nature of experience with evidence from the contents of experience. I don't make up logic. look it up...

There is no such thing. If something really exists, it's possible to show it.

does show exclude inference? because science infers a lot about what can't be physically shown... sure they infer from empirical evidence, but they infer nonetheless.
another thing... why is it reasonable to use reason to come to a conclusion who's premises are based on empirical evidence... but not to come to a conclusion based on a premise that is based on what we know is true, but is not empirical?

Period. If you can't show it, you don't know it, no matter how good it sounds to you.

let me try this one last time... see if I can get you to actually answer it rather than dodging... AHEM... how do you know this (If you can't show it, you don't know it)? can you show that's true?