And likewise, you can't get people to just accept that material things exist outside of minds.I don't need people to accept that, though. If they want to think that there's nothing but the mind, well, I find that kind of silly, but it doesn't bother me because they still have to play by the same rules that I do. That's what science is about, discovering those rules and how they work, and how we can make use of them.
I guess we are on opposite sides of the fence locked in a standstill.More accurately, you've fenced yourself into a specific belief and are zealously guarding your own fence from interlopers who might try to remove it. And I'm on the outside, looking in. That's what happens when you stop asking yourself if you could be wrong about your belief.
The fact is, I don't really consider immaterialism to be a viable position, especially since all the evidence we have suggests otherwise. That doesn't mean I don't think there are immaterial things (for example, energy is immaterial, although not in thesense that you mean), I just don't hold that the entire universe is contained within a mind - because what contains the mind? Our minds are contained inside our brains, and there is no evidence whatsoever that a mind can exist outside of a physical structure. I know you hold otherwise, but you've argued yourself into a corner that you simply can't get out of, because by ruling out the probability that material objects actually do exist without a mind, you've also ruled out any possibility of finding evidence that might support your position.
You are free to believe that there is an external world independent of all minds. The trouble is, you can't find any evidence that can conclusively prove this.
At least I know for a fact that things are only known through minds. I just don't go the extra step into an unproven assumption that things exist independently of minds. Occam's razor, remember?
My view is still more empirical.