Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

"the universe consists of physical processes", I dare you to tell me what this means. Saying "A is more fundamental than B" is utterly meaningless, basically a restating of the premise in different words, unless you tell me what it means.

physical: descriptive of matter, energy, space, and time. good enough for you? mind: descriptive of thoughts, emotions, qualia, and a sense of awareness that includes a sense on ones self. are we good on these defining terms?

I think you have a very narrow notion of what a physical process can do. It could be that a physical force uploads our minds into something that is preserved after we die. It's just not very likely, there is no evidence for it.

we have not observed a "force" that uploads into anything. according to materialists, brains produce consciousness. when brains are destroyed, so is consciousness. in idealism, brains are not necessary for consciousness. they are simply there as an interface with this apparent physical world. it is so our minds can be localized in space rather than nowhere in space.

It's the thing you lose when you are in a deep coma.

it is apparently lost, though not necessarily. when you look outside in the daytime, you can see the sunlight. you also receive light from stars, but you do not notice it because it is being glared by the sun. similarly in a state of what we call unconsciousness, we still have consciousness but it is being glared making it appear that it is not there. just because something apparently is not there doesn't mean it truly isn't.

I think it's unlikely, so I come down on the side of no.
But "all that exists is atoms and the void" is a very simplistic picture.

then what exists apart from matter, energy, space, and time in your view?

You go on and on about how rigid your reasoning is, Occam's razor, want to send me to philosophy 101, and then you want to sell me immortal souls and God, as if you had any good reason to think that any of that exists.

I explained how idealism entails theism, which you did not address and therefore I assume you have no issue. if you don't think idealism entails theism, then I suggest you explain why I'm wrong. the only issue you've taken so far is my use of Occam's Razor and Cartesian Skepticism. so you are in no position to mock my position of theism as you have not objected to my steps between idealism and theism.

---

What de fuq is a soul? What de fuq is a God?

It's like playing chess against people who claim they have invisible pieces.

soul: what is associated with the essence of one's self.
God: what was already referred to in the OP as the super conscious that contains all other conscious and the apparent physical world, which is in essence, all that exists.
are you good on the terms?