Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[Mystic]

Perception is required for our existence. We can't exist without perception, because our personality requires it.

Ideas require perception. Light illuminates perception so in that definition, perception is required for to be light.

We don't define ourselves by choosing whatever standards we chosen and that forms who we are and it's accurate.

If we have an accurate self, there is an accurate vision, but when you reflect about it, you will know it has to have perfect vision with respect to all possible types of existences and ranks, and hues of beauty and types of shapes of the personality,  it has to.

You think about it long enough and you see you exist through the vision of the absolute perceiver, and hearer of the innermost secret voice of the soul.

---

So yes, material world is an illusion, since true existence exists through vision of God and luminosity of his mind.

---

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.

This is the heart of the argument. But to me it seems the argument is sound, and he is right.

Well done whoever this guy is, he has proven God from a very good reflection.

God himself is an sustained idea, but that is the true form of existence, it's spiritual, not material which no one can define when it comes down to it but guess at it by an idea and imagination in the mind ironic!

---

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.

It's a sound wonderful argument.

The heart of it the dispute of it will be:

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.



This seems right, for their to be a casual link and relationship, there has to be something in common, but there isn't.