Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 4:25 pm
(This post was last modified: March 29, 2018 at 4:28 pm by Mystic.)
(March 29, 2018 at 4:19 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Okay, I'll lay my cards on the table. Berkeley's mistake is that he considers thoughts as what is known; whereas, thoughts are actually the means by which we know. For example, someone can know about an apple but the thoughts by which he knows about the apple are not the apple itself.
I think this is red herring. It's not really interpreting it from the angle he meant it by. What he meant is our experience is immaterial, when we experience something like an idea, that is immaterial, right? He is saying somethings are immaterial.
Well to show what we assume is material is not material but immaterial, he says, there is no interconnection between material and immaterial. And this obvious since they are defined as opposite. When we want to imagine materialistic existence, we imagine something opposite to immaterial existence which we perceive in ourselves existing.
So how can there be an interaction between the two when they have nothing in common?
He then goes on to show things than are not material, but exist through God's mind, his perception, his speaking them into existence. And this is true. And it follows. Things can't be immaterial and spiritual without a cause. They must be constantly being caused because there is no space confinement to their existence yet they interact in a simulation we don't control and is not just a dream.
Posts: 67190
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 4:27 pm
-off into the stratosphere we go
(which, for reference, is a slightly different shade of blue than we're used to  )
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 4:36 pm
(March 29, 2018 at 4:19 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Okay, I'll lay my cards on the table. Berkeley's mistake is that he considers thoughts as what is known; whereas, thoughts are actually the means by which we know. For example, someone can know about an apple but the thoughts by which he knows about the apple are not the apple itself.
And btw, this would be true of everything but thoughts. To know what is a thought is through thought.
And our perception of thought is immaterial. All he has to do is prove one immaterial thing exists, and I think we all experience ourselves, so this is rather unnecessary.
And since material and non-material are two opposites, they cannot interact and cause one another, they have no causal link.
It then follows the real existence we assume of material is in fact spiritual, and spiritual in fact for sure needs a source that brings them into existence, ie. the ideas of God, the spoken words of God to be and it is.
Posts: 5813
Threads: 86
Joined: November 19, 2017
Reputation:
59
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 4:51 pm
(March 29, 2018 at 4:27 pm)Khemikal Wrote: -off into the stratosphere we go
(which, for reference, is a slightly different shade of blue than we're used to )
Lol! FWIW, Berkeley makes some well-reasoned arguments. I might dig one or two of them out tomorrow. I'm tired right now, though.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 4:56 pm
I got to research this guy. He looks smart!
Posts: 67190
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 4:57 pm
I'm sure he does, but a well reasoned argument isn't capable of rescuing a faulty premise or proposition.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 4:58 pm
^there was no faulty premise.
Posts: 67190
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 5:06 pm
(This post was last modified: March 29, 2018 at 5:07 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
-he reasserted.....again......
Obviously, there's one premise that's very important to you. If you're comfortable repeating yourself..I;ll just repeat myself. The whole thing begins and ends with the notion that ideas are immaterial stuff. Without it, it doesn't work, with it, there's no need to argue the rest anyway.
It;s a variation on a common theme. "There's some immaterial stuff, and we call this stuff god".
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 5:07 pm
(This post was last modified: March 29, 2018 at 5:12 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
No matter, never mind. Asserting that ideas are materials (because you said so) isn't any better than asserting that materials are ideas. Idea = material means the same as material = idea. Same equation backwards.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 5:11 pm
(March 29, 2018 at 5:06 pm)Khemikal Wrote: -he reasserted.....again......
Obviously, there's one premise that's very important to you. If you're comfortable repeating yourself..I;ll just repeat myself. The whole thing begins and ends with the notion that ideas are immaterial stuff. Without it, it doesn't work, with it, there's no need to argue the rest anyway.
Of course it won't work without that. And it ends with nothing is material and God is the source of existence of the immaterial (ie. his vision/ideas create things).
He is right though, ideas don't exist without perception, and perception is immaterial as it that which is perceived, whether there is material things or not, hinges on the premise there is no interaction between the two, and that is true since there is commonality between material and immaterial.
And so it's a very good argument.
|
