Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[Minimalist]

Useless philosophical bullshit.

[vulcanlogician]

@F&F So heat itself would be an idea to Berkeley. He never contradicts John Locke or David Hume on this (both considered HEAT to be a "secondary quality" of the fire--- ie it is a perceptive phenomenon... not a real thing). Berkeley IS an empiricist in that regard (no different than Locke or Hume). He just goes one step further and says the whole damn fire is an idea... which is all we ever perceive it as.

PS: I have plenty of refutations for Berkeley, but I kind of like him so I'm doing devil's advocate duty here...

[Mystic]

PS: I have plenty of refutations for Berkeley, but I kind of like him so I'm doing devil's advocate duty here...

Can you pm me them.

I don't see a possible flaw in his argument.

[FatAndFaithless]

@F&F So heat itself would be an idea to Berkeley. He never contradict John Locke or David Hume on this (both considered HEAT to be a "secondary quality" of the fire--- ie it is a perceptive phenomenon... not a real thing. Berkeley IS an empiricist in that regard (no different than Locke or Hume). He just goes one step further and says the whole damn fire is an idea... which is all we ever perceive it as.

PS: I have plenty of refutations for Berkeley, but I kind of like him so I'm doing devil's advocate duty here...

Heat is not a perception though.  We know about energy transfer, the movement of atoms, the chemical reaction of burning something, etc.  It's an extant thing that would exist whether or not we were here to perceive it.  And how would one empirically prove that nothing exists materially, if all the empirical evidence is, apparently, simply a perception or an idea? How can he call himself an empiricist if he simultaneously says that all experience (evidence, data, etc) is simply perception?

I just fail to find any use at all in going down this rabbit hole.  It doesn't help us understand anything better (especially considering how much more we know about neuroscience, physics, etc now).

[Mystic]

^how much you know or assume lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

@F&F So heat itself would be an idea to Berkeley. 

Heat is not a perception though.  We know about energy transfer, the movement of atoms, the chemical reaction of burning something, etc. 

There's alot of redundancy in it, that expresses berkeleys idea that things like heat are ideas..and that his idea of what something is, is positively naive.  The definition of light was my favorite.  His definition..anyway, as a natural blah blah blah that allows us to see.  

I mean, could be photons but what do we know..and maybe the lights really do turn on and off when we leave or enter a room.  No possible way to test that.  

[Mystic]

HE doesn't assume. He proves they are by the premise that material and immaterial have no interaction to cause one another as they have no interconnection, nothing in common.

[The Grand Nudger]

If there's no way for the immaterial and material to interact...that's more of a problem for the immaterial..Mystic, lol.  In fact, it's -the- problem that killed dualism.

[vulcanlogician]

@MK sure man, I'll PM that to you if you'd like.

True F&F but your hand does not register 200 degrees celcius, right? Instead it registers "Ouch! Hot!" There is a specific sensation that heat has... and a specific sensation that cold has... just like the color "blue" has a certain appearance. These are the mind's interpretation of color and temperature. There is no equal sign between the SENSATION of warmth and a thermometer reading. That's what Locke and Hume call a "secondary quality."

Shape and size are different. Shape is a "primary" quality because it is not the result of the interpretive powers of the mind... it is a direct representation of an actual quality of the object.

[Mystic]

If theres no way for the immaterial and material to intreract...that's more of a problem for the immaterial..Mystic, lol.  In fact, it's -the- problem that killed dualism.

Except ideas and perception is not material.