(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.