Berkeley's Idealism

[Neo-Scholastic]

Is anyone aware of a compelling refutation of Berkeley’s form of Idealism in which God serves as the universal perceiver that sustains reality by observation of all phenomena?

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, I here by refute it.

What can be asserted without evidence can be just as compellingly refuted with another assertion to the contrary.

[reverendjeremiah]

Is anyone aware of a compelling refutation of Berkeley’s form of Idealism in which God serves as the universal perceiver that sustains reality by observation of all phenomena?

And he manages to figure that a single male God is responsible?

How did he come to that conclusion?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, I here by refute it.

What can be asserted without evidence can be just as compellingly refuted with another assertion to the contrary.

So a Berkeley Idealist is every bit as reasonable in their assertion as your refutation to the contrary?

[downbeatplumb]

Is anyone aware of a compelling refutation of Berkeley’s form of Idealism in which God serves as the universal perceiver that sustains reality by observation of all phenomena?

Or its the matrix, or the dream of a hyper intelligent shade of the colour blue or........... one of a million other just as likely things

[The Grand Nudger]

If by "every bit as reasonable" you mean "no evidence is required", then yes.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, I here by refute it.

What can be asserted without evidence can be just as compellingly refuted with another assertion to the contrary.

So a Berkeley Idealist is every bit as reasonable in their assertion as your refutation to the contrary?

No. You see, the assertion is without proof or evidence, and without even theroetically falsifiable prediction. So it occupies the absolute lowest level in the pit of worthlessness. It is even more worthless than an assertion that is plainly wrong but which is specific enough for the observer to determine how wrong and why wrong. So the assertion is useless even for the meagerest purpose of learning from its own error.

The dismissal of it, on the other hand, is not without evidence. It is based on the evidence that the assertion lacks any sort of evidence that warrants a response other than dismissal.

[genkaus]

Is anyone aware of a compelling refutation of Berkeley’s form of Idealism in which God serves as the universal perceiver that sustains reality by observation of all phenomena?

The refutation lies in the argument itself. If observation or perception is required to sustain reality, then who observes/perceives god in order to sustain him?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The dismissal of it [idealism]...is not without evidence. It is based on the evidence that the assertion lacks any sort of evidence that warrants a response other than dismissal.

The problem is a bit more subtle than your answer suggests. Berkeley’s Idealism claims that all knowledge reduces to perceived phenomena. You cannot deny that perception happens. But you can reasonably deny that a physical reality (or deity for that "matter") is necessary to support perception. Berkeley’s Idealism says, “Prove that physical matter exists,” and “Give me evidence of any reality other than perceived phenomena.” According to your criteria, physical reductionism is equally worthy of dismissal.

[Anomalocaris]

The problem is a bit more subtle than your answer suggests. Berkeley’s Idealism claims that all knowledge reduces to perceived phenomena. You cannot deny that perception happens.

I don't deny it. Denial would be an assertion requiring evidence, or at least a unique falsifiable prediction, to be worth making.

But you can reasonably deny that a physical reality (or deity for that "matter") is necessary to support perception.

Based on what? The only evidence - perception, argues otherwise. Assertion to the contrary of evidence, and also devoid of falsifiable predictions, hasn't any claim to being "reasonable". No worthwhile reasoning either lead to it, or can flow from it.

Berkeley’s Idealism says, “Prove that physical matter exists,” and “Give me evidence of any reality other than perceived phenomena.”

To the maximum degree of evidence allowable within perception, no evidence for its non-existence is found.