Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[polymath257]

So, what do you think, where is the fallacy in the George Berkeley's argument for the existence of God?
For those who don't know, it goes somewhat like this. There are things for which obviously "esse est percipii", that is, they exist only because they are being perceived by somebody. Light, for instance, exists only because it's being perceived, because, if it weren't perceived, it wouldn't by light by definition (a natural agent that enables vision). Since perceptions are ideas, they have to be caused by other ideas. Ideas have nothing in common with material things (they don't occupy space or have mass), and therefore they can't be caused by material things. Since perceptions, which are ideas, can be caused by the natural agents such as light, it has to be that those natural agents are also immaterial. Now, here is the important part: if those natural agents are being caused or affected by something, that is, the things we perceive as material, it has to be that those things that affect them are also immaterial. If they were truly material, they couldn't affect the ideas through which we perceive them (such as light), and therefore they couldn't be perceived at all. Therefore, the material world has to be an illusion. All we can actually perceive are ideas.
Now, if those things are ideas, how it is that, if we open our eyes in the middle of the day, we can't choose what we will see or whether we will see anything? It has to be that those ideas aren't ours, but that those are actually ideas of a supreme being, and that we are also one of his ideas. That being is called God.
It actually sounds smart. The argument for the material world being an illusion is quite convincing, isn't it? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Well, I think it is wrong from the get-go. Light is NOT simply a vehicle for vision any more than waves in air are ONLY a vehicle for perception of sound. Light is a physical process: an electromagnetic wave, and thereby has physical effects which can be measured and understood.

I disagree that ideas have nothing in common with physical things. In fact, ALL the evidence at this point points to ideas being brain *processes*. And so, ideas are also caused by physical things: that is clear since our senses are caused by the physical processes that stimulate our nerves.

So I deny that all things are ideas: ideas are *one* type of process inside of brains. They both affect and are affected by physical processes.

Berkeley's whole structure is flawed deeply.

[Mystic]

than asserting that materials are ideas.

That was a conclusion by all sound premises, it was not an assumption.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

 You know, that;s the irony of it.  If we're just asserting things then all assertions are equal.   So it makes little sense for a person to reassert and reassert.

Since we're not just asserting things...one side asserts the other side asserts and then elaborates....it's not a problem for us..just one of us. 

As far as we can tell, ideas are as material as any other thing..even if they aren't as blue as any other thing (or are twice as blue as any other thing), and even if the idea of an apple is not an apple. I've explored the assertion at every line of inquiry presented, and will continue to do so for any example offered. As assertions..they're not equal. That's that, unless and until someone wants to explore the immaterial assertion in the same way that the material assertion has been. Double irony, I can throw away the material assertion for conversations sake and I won't even be close to out of options when it comes to tossing out the conclusion.

As poly commented..the entire thing is deeply flawed.

[Mystic]

You see red in a dream. Is redness material there or not^

[polymath257]

Light of an interval of wavelengths is called 'blue' because when we see such light, we get the experience of seeing blue. The same for red, yellow, green, etc.

The wavelength (equivalently, the frequency) is a property of light (along with direction of travel) which is directly related to the energy of the photons carrying that light.

We have the experience of blue light because in our eyes, there are pigmented cells that send signals to our brains when exposed to light. The specific pattern of signals is interpreted by our brains as color (as well as other things, like direction, etc). So, light with a certain range of wavelengths produces certain types of signals because it stimulated certain cones in our retinas. That sends signals through the optic nerve to the occipital region of the brain where it is interpreted as a color: the color blue.

Now, most times when we see things, the eyes respond to a variety of wavelengths at the same time, so we see a mixture via the signals sent to the brain. But it is possible for two different *physical* situations to give the same signals, so we see them as the same color. They can be distinguished physically by their electromagnetic properties, but we do not 'see' a difference.

This happens more dramatically for color blind people who lack one type of cone, so see the same color when most of us see different colors (specifics depend on the type of cone lost). In this sense, most mammals (such as dogs) are color blind: they only have two (or one) type of cone.

But certain birds have MORE than three types of cone, so they can distinguish colors that we cannot. The signals going to their brains carry information from four or more types of cone, so can distinguish physical situations that we cannot.

So it is essentially certain that there will be two 'colors' that we see as *absolutely the same (not just different shades) that a duck, for example, would see as different.

Light is a physical process. The experience of light is determined by what information gets transferred to our brains to be processed.

[Mystic]

In a dream, if you see green, is it material or immaterial?

[The Grand Nudger]

Material, yet again. This really cant be stressed enough. When we were completely ignorant of how our dreams and thoughts arose..it would have been reasonable to call it a wash between material and immaterial. We are no longer so ignorant...so it;s not.

I understand that you need it to be true as much as berkeleys argument does...but..tough shit? I need new shoes.

[Mystic]

Material, yet again.

Ok but if it's immaterial the green color in the dream... then my friend. This argument proves God.

Your atheism hence is contingent on so many things being not proven or known or manifestly true while to me they are so obvious, that I can't relate to your denial.

I don't know how you see our personality as a material thing for example. I don't. I can't perceive that and in fact believe it's impossible to perceive it as that.

Your personality is distinct from material world.  If you have a false memory, your false memory doesn't define you, like wise a true memory. Your link the past is because your actions int he past were real, it's the real existence of these actions that are part of you. 

Neither you nor your link to the past is material, and so dualism is out the window so don't let Jinn bugs bite

[The Grand Nudger]

Material, yet again.

Ok but if it's immaterial the green color in the dream... then my friend. This argument proves God.

Maybe with the eldritch system of loon-logic you employ.  I wonder, though, if you think there's anything that doesn't prove god.  

Your atheism hence is contingent on so many things being not proven or known or manifestly true while to me they are so obvious, that I can't relate to your denial.

I don't know how you see our personality as a material thing for example. I don't. I can't perceive that and in fact believe it's impossible to perceive it as that.

Your personality is distinct from material world.  If you have a false memory, your false memory doesn't define you, like wise a true memory. Your link the past is because your actions int he past were real, it's the real existence of these actions that are part of you. 

Neither you nor your link to the past is material, and so dualism is out the window so don't let Jinn bugs bite

Please, I think we all know that my atheism is contingent on just one thing.  Demon locks from the dark forces.  

Lay down, you're drunk.

[I_am_not_mafia]

There are things for which obviously "esse est percipii", that is, they exist only because they are being perceived by somebody.

The word 'obviously' is always a warning bell for me. Like 'obviously' what I am telling you is the truth so don't bother questioning it.

Putting aside ill-defined terms and equivocation for one moment, it would be easier to argue that there is nothing that exists only because it is being perceived by someone.