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.

[The Grand Nudger]

"It's not a fiat assertion"......-reasserts by fiat.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

I went over to a large rock, and gave it a solid kick until my foot rebounded from it. "I refute it thus".

No need to refute the good bishop. Sam Johnson did long ago.

[Mystic]

O man... you guys...

---

Ok immaterial has no interconnection quality with materialism since by definition they are opposites.

Can we agree on that? If so, how does material cause immaterial, if nothing to bridge the cause and effect?

This is the heart of the argument. Everything else was stating things we know, and the conclusion follows.

That is if there would be disputable premise, it would be one of these two, but both are manifestly true when thought about.

---

Ok immaterial has no interconnection quality with materialism since by definition they are opposites.

Can we agree on that? If so, how does material cause immaterial, if nothing to bridge the cause and effect?

This is the heart of the argument. Everything else was stating things we know, and the conclusion follows.

That is if there would be disputable premise, it would be one of these two, but both are manifestly true when thought about.

[vulcanlogician]

Yes, but he asserts that by the premise, material (which if you think about is Opposite of immaterialism) has nothing in common with immaterial, and so there can't be a causal link. 

I think this is stronger then any argument I ever done so this guy is good   IT's very well thought of and presented well.

And I think I just further emphasized why that premise is completely true.

...except for the fact that the immaterial idea wouldn't exist if there wasn't a material brain to conceive of it.  Material, fleshy, pink brains are the source of ideas.  There's a direct necessity for the material brain in order for the immaterial conception to exist or matter.  A material brain is the necessary cause for ideas, as far as all the available evidence tells us.

But Berkeley would argue that we've never experienced a pink, fleshy brain directly... all we've experienced is the idea of a pink, fleshy brain...


@Khem

So, yeah, you have a system of firing neurons which cause the idea. If you are going to call those neurons (or the energy flowing through them) the idea, then, yes, then the idea takes up space and has mass. But even biological naturalists might disagree with the notion that the neurons are the actual idea. I don't want to say the word "qualia" too loudly because of recent controversies, but yeah... *whispers* qualia.

I think Berkeley's philosophy can be understood apart from neuroscience, regardless. Obviously he didn't know anything about it because neuroscience wasn't even a thing in his time. But he does have a point about ideas. All we ever know are ideas, and we never really "experience" material things. I'm pretty sure it's too airy fairy for you to take seriously, but he does say something interesting about the world we perceive.

[Mystic]

"It's not a fiat assertion"......-reasserts by fiat.

I ask one thing just show you understand the argument. And then at least if you are going to refute it or disagree, show you understood it.

Cause I thought it was just me and I present things bad. But this is well presented and easy to follow.

[FatAndFaithless]

...except for the fact that the immaterial idea wouldn't exist if there wasn't a material brain to conceive of it.  Material, fleshy, pink brains are the source of ideas.  There's a direct necessity for the material brain in order for the immaterial conception to exist or matter.  A material brain is the necessary cause for ideas, as far as all the available evidence tells us.

But Berkeley would argue that we've never experienced a pink, fleshy brain directly... all we've experienced is the idea of a pink, fleshy brain...


@Khem

So, yeah, you have a system of firing neurons which cause the idea. If you are going to call those neurons (or the energy flowing through them) the idea, then, yes, then the idea takes up space and has mass. But even biological naturalists might disagree with the notion that the neurons are the actual idea. I don't want to say the word "qualia" too loudly because of recent controversies, but yeah... *whispers* qualia.

I think Berkeley's philosophy can be understood apart from neuroscience, regardless. Obviously he didn't know anything about it because neuroscience wasn't even a thing in his time. But he does have a point about ideas. All we ever know are ideas, and we never really "experience" material things. I'm pretty sure it's too airy fairy for you to take seriously, but he does have a point.

Would Berkeley argue that holding my hand in fire means I'm not really experiencing heat, I'm experiencing the idea of heat?  All consciousness is in the brain and experience is the result of neurons firing, and ideas are simply neurons firing as well - so in that literal sense, absolutely everything we experience is an idea.  Fine, I get it.

How is that in any way useful or helpful or descriptive of reality? It sounds almost like a vague form of solipsism.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Khem

So, yeah, you have a system of firing neurons which cause the idea. If you are going to call those neurons (or the energy flowing through them) the idea, then, yes, then the idea takes up space and has mass. But even biological naturalists might disagree with the notion that the neurons are the actual idea. I don't want to say the word "qualia" too loudly because of recent controversies, but yeah... *whispers* qualia.

Qualia would also be a signal (or a discrete or distributed region)...you can whisper it or shout it but they would be included in any measurement if they existed. 

I think Berkeley's philosophy can be understood apart from neuroscience, regardless. Obviously he didn't know anything about it because neuroscience wasn't even a thing in his time. But he does have a point about ideas. All we ever know are ideas, and we never really "experience" material things. I'm pretty sure it's too airy fairy for you to take seriously, but he does have a point.

Berkley may not have known better, but we do.  It's not our fault he based his house of cards on ignorance. I -did- give him a mulligan for one he got right-ish by accident, too, didn't I? I was being very generous, lol. I understand it just fine, but who cares? I understand a great many things that aren't true.

I agree that all we ever experience (directly, at least) are ideas. As a rejoinder..however, you are silently importing the idea that ideas are other than material...or else it;s not a point or objection..and..again, for reference..we now know that;s not true, lol.

[Mystic]

...except for the fact that the immaterial idea wouldn't exist if there wasn't a material brain to conceive of it.  Material, fleshy, pink brains are the source of ideas.  There's a direct necessity for the material brain in order for the immaterial conception to exist or matter.  A material brain is the necessary cause for ideas, as far as all the available evidence tells us.

But Berkeley would argue that we've never experienced a pink, fleshy brain directly... all we've experienced is the idea of a pink, fleshy brain...


@Khem

So, yeah, you have a system of firing neurons which cause the idea. If you are going to call those neurons (or the energy flowing through them) the idea, then, yes, then the idea takes up space and has mass. But even biological naturalists might disagree with the notion that the neurons are the actual idea. I don't want to say the word "qualia" too loudly because of recent controversies, but yeah... *whispers* qualia.

I think Berkeley's philosophy can be understood apart from neuroscience, regardless. Obviously he didn't know anything about it because neuroscience wasn't even a thing in his time. But he does have a point about ideas. All we ever know are ideas, and we never really "experience" material things. I'm pretty sure it's too airy fairy for you to take seriously, but he does say something interesting about the world we perceive.

I think it's very a good argument.

Material is opposite to immaterial by definition. Ideas are immaterial.

If there is no interconnection between a and b, nothing in common, than they cannot interact and one cannot be the cause of the other.

Dualism is disproven for sure by this premise if you believe in God, material existence is not possible for him to create, since he is not material.

But it also is proven regardless if you believe in God or not, the true nature of existence is immaterial because we perceive immaterial and assume opposite for material, and hence, this made up reality we made up in our heads, by definition, cannot have interaction.

So immaterialism is the state of existence without any material.

[Pat Mustard]

O man... you guys...

Don't diss Sam Johnson, kicker of things.

His was a great mind, much more amenable to reality and open to better ideas than yours.