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.