I'm formulating an anti-materialism argument since 2019. It's far from complete, but I'm itching to share this specific part to receive feedback. If there's no problem, I could edit this post every time I have something new.

This is a basic scheme of the argument:

1. Cosmological-ontological-epistemological argument (Principles of Nothing and Infinite, Philosophy).
2. The basis of the "Spiritual Thought" (Intuition over Reason).
3. Historical arguments (History of religions, comparative religion, theology, interpretation of sacred writings, esoterism, occultism, alchemy).
4. History of the Venetian oligarchy and its relationship with materialistic science.
5. Scientific arguments (Multi-dimensions, ineptitude of our physiological senses, ineptitude of our psychological senses [Confirmation bias, selective memory, illusion of causality], general psychology, psychoanalysis, scientific paradigms and the political aspects of the scientific institution).
6. Moral argument (Psychosocial damage caused by materialistic ideology, materialism cannot rationally argue morality, immoralities carried out by materialistic science).

And this is the first part:

Do I believe or not in God? If with God we mean the personal, religious God, then what I believe is that it's a human interpretation, and therefore, incomplete –nevertheless not unreal–, of the mysterious existence of the universe. In that, and only that strict sense, I do believe in that conception of God. But my own conception of God is somewhat more Spinosist, even Pythagorean: I believe God is the universe, its laws and its language –mathematics. Now, I fundamentally distance myself from Spinoza, because I carry his own premises to the last consequences, as he failed to do.

If I accept that God is the universe, then it falls under its own weight that man is God, since man is a fruit of the machinations of the universe. Therefore, the personal and religious conception of God, being a fruit of the human mind, which in turn is the fruit of the universe, has a certain closeness to what God really is, and I would never dare to discard or discredit the information and knowledge buried in the sacred books, but always keeping in mind that they are interpretations stained with culture, historical traditions and human emotions. Now, paradoxically, these human characteristics I just described are part of God, because human beings are the children of the universe.

So the crucial thing, in order not to get caught in a loop, would be to first understand the universe. Where did it come from? Why does it exist? What it actually is?; the last two questions are dependent on the first, which, sadly, is impossible to answer. I don't use the word impossible lightly.

There are only two alternatives to explain why the universe is. The first is that it literally came out of Nothing. The second, much more possible, is that it has existed forever, Infinitely. It doesn't matter which alternative is correct, because both are incomprehensible to us. I believe that the concepts of Nothing and Infinity will never be understood by a rational human mind, because we are not capable of experiencing either of the two first-hand, and less of processing such large amounts of information in our brains, in the case of Infinity, and such lack of information, in the case of Nothing. This obviously leads us to the fact that there are facets of existence that are beyond our empirical capacities, and therefore, the pandora's box of metaphysics is opened.

From here I would proceed to explaining Intuition and its crucial role in spiritual schools of thought, and why such schools of thought can get us closer to understanding the universe. Then, how oligarchs destroyed science and reason, spawning the intellectual abortions of materialism and atheism, and finally why they are irrational and, more important, immoral.

If there is interest on my argument, I will keep editing this post, like I said, until completing it.
Here's an extra-summary, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr:

16th and Early-17th Centuries: Venice launches empiricism from among the followers of the Padua Aristotelian Pietro Pomponazzi, such as the notorious Francesco Zorzi ("Giorgi"). After the Sarpi factional victory of 1582, the effort of Venice to destroy the scientific method of Plato, Nicolaus of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, et al. becomes more energetic, adopting figures such as Galileo, Francis Bacon, Robert Fludd, et al. as part of the deployment of empiricism to destroy the vitality of science from the inside.
Early-17th Century: Venice orchestrates the launching of the so-called "Thirty Years War" of 1618-1648, destroying Germany and much of the rest of Central and Northern Europe, while finishing off the already broken power of Spain.
Pope Deploys Vatican Diplomat Mazarin to Become Candidate Successor to Richelieu in France: It was Venice's orchestration of perpetual conflicts between France and the Hapsburg interests which was bleeding Europe into a threatened "New Dark Age." The result is a somewhat stable peace, organized largely by Mazarin during the 1648-1652 interval. Mazarin's protégé, the most capable Colbert, becomes temporarily the power behind Louis XIV's throne (1662-1683).
Beginning 1666, Venice organizes 130 years of almost continuous warfare and debilitating internal intrigues against its principal adversary, France,115 until the power of France is broken, and France goes virtually under British mandate in 1815.
Early-18th Century:
London comes increasingly under the direction of Venice's intelligence controller Abbot Antonio Conti.
1763-1793: London organizes and then coordinates the French Revolution of 1789-1793. In 1763, Lord Shelburne employs Adam Smith to work on projects intended to bring about the destruction of France and the crushing of the aspirations for economic development and autonomy among the English colonies of North America.116 Shelburne, as Prime Minister of Britain, conducts secret peace-treaty negotiations with the newly independent American colonies and France; imposes Adam Smith's novel concoction, "free trade," as a condition of peace, intending thereby to bankrupt both the U.S. and France. In 1789, British intelligence assets such as the Duke of Orléans, Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, each and all directed by Shelburne's British foreign-intelligence service chief Jeremy Bentham, plunge France into the obscenities of the Jacobin coup d'état and rule.
Early-19th Century: After the defeat of and virtual British mandate over France, London prepares to destroy both the United States and its principal allies of the 1789-1815 wars against France. Against the U.S.A., it uses the opium-trading, treasonous "Hartford Convention" accomplices of Jeremy Bentham's British intelligence agent Aaron Burr. Against its former allies Spain, Russia, and Austro-Hungary, it deploys British intelligence's agent Napoleon III and the neo-Jacobin radical networks of British intelligence agent Giuseppe Mazzini.
Close of 19th Century: London organizes for a coming Europe-wide general war, whose purpose is to finish off all European resistance to a "world-federalist" empire. The principal targets for mutual destruction in this war are Russia, Austro-Hungary, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire. The principal so-called "geo-political" motive for London's plans for such a general war is the collaboration, centered in proposed Eurasian railway development programs, between Russia's Minister Count Sergei Witte and France's Minister Gabriel Hanotaux. Should such projects mature, as Hanotaux and Witte intend, Britain's hopes of a world-empire were destroyed by the economic development of Eurasia which must result from carrying through Witte's policies.
Close of World War I: The utopian world-federalists, the hard core of the Venetian faction around Bertrand Russell and World War I British foreign intelligence chief H.G. Wells, takes over. London views the ruinous effects of the recent war as clearing the way for efforts to establish one-world government along Venetian utopian lines.
Following 1953: The death of Soviet General Secretary Josef Stalin clears the way for Moscow's capitulation to Bertrand Russell's demands for a nuclear condominium between the superpower blocs as a basis for developing the U.N.O. into a one-world dictatorship. The Anglo-American utopians move to unleash, beginning 1964-1966, an end to scientific progress ("post-industrial" paradise), aided by unleashing of the mind-destroying "rock-drug-sex counterculture" upon—first—the university youth-strata of North America and Europe.
Following 1989: The "collapse of the wall" is viewed in Prime Minister Thatcher's London as the end of the super-power controversy, clearing the way for the early transformation of the U.N.O. into a "one-world government" dictatorship, eliminating both the institution of the modern nation-state republic and scientific progress.