Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Mudhammam]

indications from what exactly? your perception of the outside world? news flash, you can't use your perception to justify what you think your perception is. to justify a source you must use a different source. the only thing we have besides perception of the world is introspection. and this shows ideas, thoughts, and information is what's most fundamental in all of our mental processes. so why postulate something more fundamental when mind is all we need to explain experience?

See, you keep deifying individual perception, but then when someone asks the next obvious questions, such as, "Did the Egyptians build the pyramids before your perception of them came into being?" or "Is the earth the same age as your mind?", to avoid looking like you belong in a nut house, you instead just opt to appear silly: ad hoc asserting that mind is really a substance that is MUCH MUCH BIGGER than YOUR mind, though you have no evidence that such a universal mind exists, nor what it even means for a mind to exist independent of a material brain. That's not parsimonious. Furthermore, you can change your perceptions by influencing your material brain by injecting material chemicals. Strange, since, you know, you claim mind is non-material and more fundamental.

except you can't get evidence from the physical world. all you can get is evidence derived from assembled information that resembles a physical world, which makes up your perception. you can't use what you perceive as evidence for statements about your perception. like I said, this evidence was either gathered from a foreign substance compiled into information in terms of mind, or it just comes from mind.
which makes fewer assumptions?

The fewest assumptions demands that the "assembled information" is the atomic "materials" that we can identify entering our sense organs and affecting our brain states. Nowhere does fewest assumptions = cosmic mind that exists outside of a brain and does everything, but nothing more, than the physical world can be understood to do.

except matter... you don't think in terms of matter, you think in terms of consciousness. why postulate anything else?

Because the universe is not so simple that every configuration of matter results in the same properties, which consciousness is. It's like asking, "Why think in terms of liquid when things can be explained as solid?" Different productions require distinct terms and concepts, which is why we talk of mental experience in connection to brain states and not to rocks or ghosts that watch over the world.

not disconnected from material... he is the source of material. material is projected information within the mind of God.

Which you have zero evidence for, and is only necessary to avoid the ridiculous conclusions I mentioned above, (all of which is avoided by physicalism). Note that your not using "mind of God" in a metaphorical sense for something like "principle of order." By mind you explicitly mean a person with feelings and intentions. You might as well call it the mind of Zeus.

what do we presume here? the existence of mind (already known), the existence of information (known), and the existence of a conscious source of it. so really idealism only makes one postulation you don't already accept. but it seems more parsimonious to accept a conscious source than non-conscious material we can only perceive with abstract descriptions (which should bare no meaning if non-existent).

And then came science, and we discovered that the "information" is not at all like we thought, and that the only evidence of minds to have been in existence (at least on our planet) is negligible in comparison to the age of matter (remember, rocks aren't conscious, and we have no reason to postulate your mind of Zeus that lives in a castle in the sky).

again, you're trying to use perception to justify perception.

As you also must do, since we have nothing else but perception upon which to do metaphysics. (I hope you will not say next, "you are trying to use being human to justify being human.... This proves that we were created by cosmic human being!).

you know science operates necessarily on assumptions like "the world wasn't created recently with an appearance of age." if consciousness is fundamental, then objects are only there when we look at them. they are the sum of the possibilities governed by defined probabilities that aren't actualized until observed, and only give basic information for the observer's perspective. so when something is observed, it becomes definite as one of the possibilities and loads a back history to simulate past behavior as if it was always physically defined, even though it wasn't. a simulation of physical worlds has defined physical laws. and of course, the simulated world would always appear older than the person perceiving the simulation. like when you play a game and it loads the resolution as you perceive different areas. they weren't there until you looked at them then they loaded.

So your parents weren't physically defined until you were born? Remember, you don't mean from your individual perspective, you mean in a metaphysical sense. Their ontology depends on you.
Okay, you are a fucking nut.

that we already know mind can create illusions that make us think to be real... indicating we can't tell the difference between mental projection from our senses or just mind.

Strange that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference and yet still be able to identify the phenomenon of illusions? How do we do this? By philosophy? Or by the empirical method perhaps?

which only attests to your consciousness. I'm talking about consciousness as a whole. how do you know consciousness isn't the source of everything?

I don't know. But I have every reason to believe that to be the case, and only solipsistic skepticism to think otherwise. When I write something in stone, why should I think the stone with its inscription disappears when I turn my head, and then re-appears exactly as it was before I looked away, never reverting back its original condition, prior to my tampering, even when I try to change my mind about it? When a child is born, I know that child may think it brought me into existence, just as your thinking you brought the world into existence (But wait, you have your ad hoc deity to solve that), but my experience (and everyone else's) testifies that the child is wrong, just as it testifies you are wrong.