Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[FatAndFaithless]

It's not a flat assertion, ideas are non-material.  Atheists believe material brain forms it, some Theists believe there is dualism, this guy proved both are wrong, and there is only non-material existence.

He does so by presenting a paradox, that relies on the truth "something with no common interconnecting anything with something cannot cause it or influence it".

And the fact is materialism is defined to be opposite to immaterialism by definition.

Yup, back on ignore with you.  This is almost worst than Drich, but at least you aren't hoping for me to go to hell or get cancer or something.

---

It's not a flat assertion, ideas are non-material.  Atheists believe material brain forms it, some Theists believe there is dualism, this guy proved both are wrong, and there is only non-material existence.

He does so by presenting a paradox, that relies on the truth "something with no common interconnecting anything with something cannot cause it or influence it".

And the fact is materialism is defined to be opposite to immaterialism by definition.

---

Fat, you cannot just attack the conclusion to refute the argument. That's not helpful.

You have to attack one of the premises.

Bolded mine.  Yes you can, you dolt.  Showing that a conclusion does not follow from given premises DEMONSTRATES that it's a flawed argument.  The conclusion of an argument is still part of the argument. That's the whole fucking point.