Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[The Grand Nudger]

it wouldn't by light by definition (a natural agent that enables vision).

Problem one.

Ideas have nothing in common with material things (they don't occupy space or have mass),

Problem two.

and therefore they can't be caused by material things.

Problem three.

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.

Problem four.

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.

Problem five.

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.

............six.............

All we can actually perceive are ideas.

This one is close enough, I'm spending my mulligan here and letting it ride.

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.

seven

That being is called God.

sigh, eight.

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.

B/i mine

As to the bold, no.  As to the ital..what argument..but I gave it my mulligan because it got that one right on accident....ish....., so meh. Perhaps pick a single one of any of the things that jump out as problematic? The one that you think is the smartest bit in the bit? Conversely, I think the part about light not being light (yadda yadda yadda) is one of the single derpiest things I've ever seen.