If God created the universe then Monistic Idealism is probably true

So Pro was not able to post in round 2, and, that being the case, I'd like to ask that voters ignore round 2. As I had no arguments of Pro's to work with, I had little of interest to the debate to say. If you've already read my Round 2 arguments, ignore them unless I use them later, in which case I'll mention it clearly. Mostly I ask that you not dock it against Pro that he missed a round. So, moving on to the debate. First, I will mention something that caught my eye right away. Pro has defined God as "the grand-mind which is the cause and creator of all things that are not God (such as the universe)". I accepted this definition by agreeing to participate in the debate, however, Pro's argument zeroes in on the premise that asserts that "God created the universe out of himself" and uses this statement for the conclusion. What seems strange to me is that Pro's definition of God seems to go against his premise and conclusion, in that he has identified God as the creator or cause of all non-God objects, but then goes on to argue that God has not created anything that was not already himself. Perhaps he can rationalize this, or perhaps viewers will not have a problem here, but I see this as very problematic, as I am being asked to assume a definition of God that calls for something which Pro is asserting is more or less impossible. God cannot create non-God things if the entire universe is only a part of God. Where did the non-God things go? Moving on. I need to show why Monistic Idealism is not probable or likely. One main way I would like to do this is by refuting the likelihood of our world being made up only of mind, per the definition of Monistic Idealism: "consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being". I take issue with the assertion that our universe is comprised not of matter, but of consciousness for multiple reasons: 1) there is strong evidence to show that consciousness is derived of a change in matter, specifically the increased cranial capacity for brain matter found in humans 2) the mind is not accurate in its depiction of real-world events, and this can be seen in the results of psychedelic drugs on the user's perception of reality 3) the entirety of our assumed life revolves around interpreting sensory data and interacting with the physical world, and changes in our mental state seem to be indicative of physical changes, such as that mentioned in 1). Defense of 1: So far as we know, human beings are alone in our experience of consciousness. There may be the possibility of animal consciousness, but this has not been fully concluded as of yet. Our ability to exist inside a "mind" and have thoughts that are distinguished from urges is due to our cranial capacity, which allows our brain to grow. Scientists such as Hansell Stedman argue that a mutation in a gene related to chewing muscles altered humans, causing us to have less power in our jaw, but less pressure on our skull, thereby giving us more room for brain growth [1]. Now this is interesting, because it gives us good reason to believe that our special kind of sentience is somewhat of an accident, in that it was not caused directly, and merely happened when our brains got bigger. There may be those who argue that animals have minds of some sort, or perhaps souls. However, it is difficult to argue that animals such as mice, or even primates, have the same capacity as the average human, and one key factor defining our species is our capacity for consciousness. If this consciousness is due in large part to an increase in brain matter, however, how are we to argue that our minds are actually the basis for the world around us? If we can merely turn off our minds by not having as much brain matter, it seems highly likely that our consciousness is derived from physical properties, not the other way around. Defense of 2: One does not have to look far for an example of a way in which our brains can be "tricked". Optical illusions such as [2] and [3] are a dime a dozen, and these typically result from either a misconception of the original image by the eye, or from a misinterpretation of the information by the brain. So, we know that we are not always perceiving reality as it perfectly is, but these optical illusions do not change much about our experience. What about mind-altering substances, however? LSD, or acid, is largely known to have hallucinogenic properties, causing the individual to experience sensory information that is not actually present in the world around him or her. This study examined a man who experienced hallucinations of faces following a period of drug use and found that certain parts of the brain, such as the Visual Cortex and the Superior Frontal Gyrus, were more active during the hallucinations [4]. The individual in question saw faces when presented with images of trees, which is obviously not the correct visual information. So, I must ask, what would happen if a person experiencing a hallucination actually acted upon this perception? Let us imagine an individual who is driving, and begins to hallucinate that they are actually driving in a video game. What are the consequences if they trust their mind and not the physical world around them? In this case, the consequences could be deadly. In the case of the man examined in the study, such misplaced trust in the mind might result in the man talking to or kissing a tree. So, if our consciousness is truly the only aspect of the universe around us, why is it wrong when it attempts to deliver information to us? Why would incongruous communication between the psychic (mental) and real (physical) worlds have such dramatic repercussions, if the physical world did not actually exist? Is it really more likely to assume that our mentality is creating the world around us as an illusion, when the mind seems perfectly capable of misinterpreting the information around it? Defense of 3: I am sitting on my bed, typing on a computer, and assuming that the characters I type will be read. I am hungry, and so I will eat after finishing this and continue to do so every day, or else I might die from starvation. I value my mind and its capabilities, however I value the physical world just as much, and tend to think that these two are one and the same. The sum of our experiences are based on this physical world, and the existence of a physical object is quite possibly the easiest empirical statement to prove, as one can simply touch it. Pro is asking us to entertain an argument that rests on the assumption that reality is entirely mental, and so the physical world does not exist. This requires a complex explanation that involves the nature of God, the nature of the universe, and some understanding of how our minds are able to project this entire world for us. On the other hand, the explanation for the material world's existence is simple: reach out and touch it. So, allowing for use of the principle behind Occam's Razor (which is actually used to compare equally likely hypotheses, a situation which is not present here, as Pro's hypothesis is much less likely than those against it), we may see that the simplest solution is the most likely [5]. Not necessarily the ultimate truth, however, Pro's argument is asserting that his stance is the most likely, whereas the arguments against it are simpler and have more backing, and so we should assume, rationally, that Pro's argument is not likely, and possibly not true. In conclusion, I have demonstrated why Pro's stance is flawed and not likely. I will give my rebuttal of his argument in full next round. [1] http://www.amphilsoc.org... [2] http://www.michaelbach.de... [3] http://www.michaelbach.de... [4] http://ehis.ebscohost.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor