It's not incredulity. It's showing you that we can talk, see, and hear in our dreams despite not using our senses. This shows that God can do all these things without needing senses.
You don't have any training in philosophy or logic, do you? B/c your argument clearly does not follow. Let's look at your argument is syllogistic form, shall we?
P1- We can "do things" in our dreams
C- Therefore, God
FAIL. Dude, this reasoning would land you a whopping F- in a basic level logic class. You aren't helping yourself one bit. Sorry. Your argument IS IN FACT Incredulity and you are refusing to see it. Further, you cannot "do things" in your dreams. You are imagining
doing things. If idealism is true (as you are trying to argue) then you have no way of distinguishing between the two. If it's 'The Matrix' for you, then it is such for everyone - and merely CLAIMING a God doesn't get you out of that.
Yes, the truth of your mighty ignorance of science and philosophy can be mighty ugly, can't it? Your question is ill-formed and demonstrates quite clearly that you haven't studied the rebuttals to Berkeley and metaphysical idealism. Have you? If you had you would't be asking this question. Furthermore, and as I've already stated, even if I agreed with the assertion that "all is idea" (and that no material exists) this wouldn't say anything as to the conclusion you are trying to reach (that some "God" is needed). All that is needed then is a resounding "Prove it!" which you haven't done. Again, arbitrary assertions don't get you out of your own idealism. Study more philosophy. It will really help you!
Nobody has ever empirically proven that an external world can exist independently of our senses. Doing so is a futile effort though. You constantly refer back to your senses to explain it, which you're not supposed to do because we are talking about something being independent of our senses.
You have missed the point entirely (over and over) b/c you keep assuming things that have not been granted (i.e. - that "proof" is only empirical in this regard, that there must be
some absolute knowledge of an external world, or that your
arbitrary answer gets you out of the problem of subjectivity). None of these assumptions gets you anywhere and if you had studied philosophy in any depth you would know this. Again, you are simply ignorant (of both science and
philosophy) and are basing your assumptions upon credulity and arguments from ignorance/incredulity.