Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

And you call this higher consciousness "God"? If so, essentially your 1 assumption is "because I exist, a God exists".

and? what does it matter what the assumption is? materialism assumes there God. the point is the assumptions are fewer. it's more parsimonious to think consciousness is fundamental than to postulate an unverifiable material substance that's supposedly behind our perceptual states.

As I said in an earlier post, I would call what you call "the higher consicousness", a consciousness with set laws. Note I haven't said anything about it being material, nor does it have to be a being. Aserting that it is a being is another assumption.

consciousness implies it's conscious... and that makes it aware which makes it a being by definition...

I think that the material vs consciousness is a red herring. If we found out that idealism was true, we wouldn't suddenly abandon the laws of physics.

well of course we wouldn't abandon physics. materialism or idealism, the universe still has a defined structure we can study and understand. these metaphysical beliefs would change our views on philosophy and religion, but not natural sciences.

Putting all this aside, I'm sure this isn't the reason you believe in a God.

not the only reason.

Your mind is part of the process that amounts to an experience of the world... namely, yours. It's not the cause of the world. THAT is your actual claim here

actually yes. that is my claim. or at least everything you stated here is accurate to what I'm claiming. glad you're paying some attention.

and just an unsubstantiated one that you keep repeating[

*sigh* just when I thought you were understanding... none of the claims you summed up are controversial. 'your mind is part of the process that amounts to the experience of the world'-- this is the definition of mind. regardless of what you think the nature of mind is, you can't deny its function which this sums up. 'namely, yours'-- well I don't think my mind has anything to do with someone else's perception. do you? 'it's not the cause of the world'-- I don't think I need to tell you that you agree with this...

in spite of being forced into the desperate position of resorting to a cosmic, non-material mind when people point out the obvious absurdities your argument finds itself in.

forced? lol. anyone reading this thread can see for themselves if I shifted my position in the face of scrutiny here. I've stuck with my claims in the OP and haven't changed them one bit.

You can say anything you like. But that's not how arguments work.

straw manning isn't how arguments work either... try and argue against my claims instead of making up your own.

You've provided no reason why minds should be fundamentally tied to material brains ON IDEALISM

isn't it obvious? because brain states affect mental state... therefore there must be a correlation. didn't you bring this up earlier?

when it explicitly states that ALL matter is created by minds, nor have you suggested where your cosmic material brain might be discovered.

changes in brain state affect personal mental state... changes in natural habitat don't. see the difference?
and of course the fundamental 'immaterial mind' won't be found in space.

The way you were using it was exactly that. Everything you defined in terms of information was equally reducible to material phenomenon.

except if matter is derived from information, something had to act in order for matter, energy, and space-time to emerge. information can't act on its own... unless it's conscious.

Until evidence suggests otherwise, that's what observation would seem to correspond with

see that's your problem. you are convinced observation corresponds with materialism despite there being alternative explanation that equally or better explain observation. why do you prefer materialism over other metaphysical beliefs of reality?

They are concepts that describe material objects, such as the wavelength of light, the depth or width of objects, etc.

except they aren't necessarily associated with material objects or processes. they can be thought of in abstract terms. you don't need to conceive of 5 objects to conceive the number 5. the number 5 can be thought of without the need to associate it with anything else.

So your idea of theism is actually more like pantheism?

no, i'm actually describing panentheism. pantheism means 'all is God' and panentheism means 'all in God' or 'all dependent on God.' I don't think the universe, or our minds, are the same as God's essence. rather they are derived from his thoughts and sustained by them.

Here your argument completely fails. Your entire justification for giving precedence to "mind" up to this point has been "Cartesian skepticism" ... but somehow you allow yourself to believe other objects exist outside of your mind, but only for your religious purposes.

by now i'm sure you know my reasons for rejecting solipsism.
1. if solipsism is true, I should have control similar to that of a lucid dream.
2. I do not have this kind of control.
3. therefore my mind must be derived.
and from there making the least amount of unnecessary assumptions leads to idealism.

This is where the scientific method comes into the picture.

the methodology can only tell you how natural processes work... they can't be used for metaphysics. materialism is a metaphysical claim, and science can't confirm it.

Remember, just because there are key questions left unresolved does not mean that your position offers any answers

I never thought my position having answers was contingent on materialist's lack of answers. idealism has no problem explaining consciousness with respect to the world we experience regardless. materialism however, as you said, has some key problems unresolved.

Are you suggesting that if I feel sad or frightened or lonely, it's because God is causing me to feel that?

I already answered this... and you ignored it.

If I were a physicalist, I'd say that something is hormones. Injecting alcohol induces drunkness; injecting lactic acid induces panic. It would seem from this that the physical body is primary.

you don't need to be a materialist to believe that. I believe that too, but I also think those material influences have predetermined properties due to their conscious source origin. but of course this conscious source is not our consciousness.