Berkeley's proof of God

[Nihilist]

I have been re-reading Berkeley, and suggest that his proof of God is absolutely convincing. In fact, he does seem to cover all possible objections comprehensively.

Forgetting the old “thus I refute him” business (which seems to be based on a misunderstanding of him anyway), the proof goes:

1. What exists in my head (those things I call ‘sense perceptions’, etc.), are ideas.
2. Ideas can only exist in a thinking subject.
3. But all the ideas in my head are not my own creation or volition, some are merely received by, or communicated to me.
4. Therefore, there must be another mind (much more powerful and wiser than mine), which generates the ideas in my head which are not my own inventions.

I don’t see how, as presented above, it can be refuted.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have been re-reading Berkeley, and suggest that his proof of God is absolutely convincing. In fact, he does seem to cover all possible objections comprehensively.

Forgetting the old “thus I refute him” business (which seems to be based on a misunderstanding of him anyway), the proof goes:

1. What exists in my head (those things I call ‘sense perceptions’, etc.), are ideas.
2. Ideas can only exist in a thinking subject.
3. But all the ideas in my head are not my own creation or volition, some are merely received by, or communicated to me.
4. Therefore, there must be another mind (much more powerful and wiser than mine), which generates the ideas in my head which are not my own inventions.

I don’t see how, as presented above, it can be refuted.

The great error is in step 3. The ideas we have are our own, our intellect forms them from the abstracted forms which the senses abstract from real substances outside the mind. Therefore your conclusion is wrong. Berkeley has been refuted at the outset. He was an idealist.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Sounds like Descartes extensive ontological arguments. I suppose they are really teleological. How could we possibly have this tremendous idea of God without there really being a God. Teleology of the mind

 

[Nihilist]

The great error is in step 3. The ideas we have are our own, our intellect forms them from the abstracted forms which the senses abstract from real substances outside the mind. Therefore your conclusion is wrong. Berkeley has been refuted at the outset. He was an idealist.

Linus2nd

Are the ideas really our own? Imagine watching a complex movie, or listening to a Beethoeven symphony. Ideas enter our mind, we receive them- yet we cannot claim to have invented them. You can listen to a Beethoven symphony- yet it does not mean that the listener composed it. In the same way, the universe (or part thereof), is in our mind as an ‘idea’ (since ideas are all that can be in our mind, by definition). But the universe (i.e. the idea consisting of innumerable colors, sounds, sizes, relations, etc.), is clearly not our own invention or volition.

The big problems with the materialist explanation are the following:

1. It seems incongrous that an idea (the thing in our head) should be derived from a non-idea (matter), since there is conceivable relationship possible between the two.
2. If the human being is the raison d’etre of Creation, and God is capable of communicating directly to our minds, it seems absurd that He should do so circuitously, through the medium of some other ‘substance’, rather than directly as Supreme mind to human mind.
3. There is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of some ‘real substance’, apart from, i. ideas in our heads, ii. our own will and mind, and iii. some other, superior Will and Mind (i.e. God), which is the source of ideas in our heads which are not of our own creation and invention.

So, following Berkeley, it may be conceded that some ‘other substance’ (apart from ideas, the human mind and the Divine mind) is possible. Yet, in the absence of any evidence of its existence, or any teleological or etiological reason why it should exist, it seems groundless to posit its existence.

 

[dmar198]

I have been re-reading Berkeley, and suggest that his proof of God is absolutely convincing. In fact, he does seem to cover all possible objections comprehensively.

Forgetting the old “thus I refute him” business (which seems to be based on a misunderstanding of him anyway), the proof goes:

1. What exists in my head (those things I call ‘sense perceptions’, etc.), are ideas.
2. Ideas can only exist in a thinking subject.
3. But all the ideas in my head are not my own creation or volition, some are merely received by, or communicated to me.
4. Therefore, there must be another mind (much more powerful and wiser than mine), which generates the ideas in my head which are not my own inventions.

I don’t see how, as presented above, it can be refuted.

I see a potentially fixable problem that I think is very damaging in the current form of the argument: the two phrases “more powerful” and “wiser” appear only in the conclusion, they are not in the premises and I don’t see anything similar to them in the premises. In a valid argument all the stuff in the conclusion has to be in the premises.

As the argument is written currently, I think you would have to remove the whole parenthetical remark in order to make the argument valid, and if you do remove the parenthetical part, it no longer sounds like you are talking about God. It just sounds like you are saying some of your ideas are given to you by other people.

I think an atheist could argue that all our ideas come from various combinations of three sources: most of them come from our own interpretations of the data received by our senses, some of them come from ourselves alone without any sensory (name removed by moderator)ut giving rise to them, and some of them are suggested to us by other people. (Technically, that’s part of number 1, since we only receive other people’s communications via our sensory organs. So really there’s just two sources here: ourselves alone, and ourselves + sensory data. At least that’s what I think atheists would say.)

Is there a way to prove that some ideas don’t come from ourselves + sensory data and other humans?

**EDIT :: Based on the comment immediately above this one, I think the OP is arguing that sensory data can’t be turned into an idea except by God’s power, which I hadn’t considered. That would answer part my objection. As soon as the atheist says all our ideas come from ourselves + the world + other people, the user of this argument can then ask if he is agreeing that “the world” is a set of ideas. If the atheist agrees with that, then who thought up these ideas?

But I don’t think the atheist would agree that the world is a set of ideas. I think an atheist would say that our minds turn the sensory data into ideas, and they are not ideas themselves. How would the OP respond to that answer? (That’s a question for you, Nihilist.)

 

[Nihilist]

I see a potentially fixable problem that I think is very damaging in the current form of the argument: the two phrases “more powerful” and “wiser” appear only in the conclusion, they are not in the premises and I don’t see anything similar to them in the premises. In a valid argument all the stuff in the conclusion has to be in the premises.

As the argument is written currently, I think you would have to remove the whole parenthetical remark in order to make the argument valid, and if you do remove the parenthetical part, it no longer sounds like you are talking about God. It just sounds like you are saying some of your ideas are given to you by other people.

I think an atheist could argue that all our ideas come from various combinations of three sources: most of them come from our own interpretations of the data received by our senses, some of them come from ourselves alone without any sensory (name removed by moderator)ut giving rise to them, and some of them are suggested to us by other people. (Technically, that’s part of number 1, since we only receive other people’s communications via our sensory organs. So really there’s just two sources here: ourselves alone, and ourselves + sensory data. At least that’s what I think atheists would say.)

Is there a way to prove that some ideas don’t come from ourselves + sensory data and other humans?

**EDIT :: Based on the comment immediately above this one, I think the OP is arguing that sensory data can’t be turned into an idea except by God’s power, which I hadn’t considered. That would answer part my objection. As soon as the atheist says all our ideas come from ourselves + the world + other people, the user of this argument can then ask if he is agreeing that “the world” is a set of ideas. If the atheist agrees with that, then who thought up these ideas?

But I don’t think the atheist would agree that the world is a set of ideas. I think an atheist would say that our minds turn the sensory data into ideas, and they are not ideas themselves. How would the OP respond to that answer? (That’s a question for you, Nihilist.)

What if we add the following premise?-

The ideas in my mind, but which do not originate from my own invention or volition, are of such a quality, complexity, consistency (compared to those invented by my own mind) which suggests they are created by a mind of vastly superior intelligence and wisdom

Now, in response to some of the issues. It is possible that the superior mind is that of any other Being of vastly superior intelligence and wisdom (even, possibly a miassively intelligent ‘human’). Is such a Being necessarily ‘God’? Strictly, no, in an absolute sense. But such a Being would effectively be the Governor and Creator of the World (or at least, ‘my’ world)- so why not, following custom, apply the name God?

Now, as for the atheist objecting to the idea that the world is a ‘set of ideas’- it could be responded- by definition, all we immediately have knowledge and experience of are ideas (including those ideas called sensations). If there is something other-than-ideas, it is per se totally inaccessible to the mind, and there can be no possible evidence for its existence. The only evidence we have are- ideas of our own generation, and ideas from some other source (necessarily a Mind). The later are apparently not of our own generation, as they don’t always accord with our volition, and often exceed the range of our intelligence. Hence we can conclude the existence of a creative Superior Mind (which, according to custom, can be called God).

Therefore, the materialist atheist is proposing we believe in something for which there is no evidence, and which, by its very nature, cannot enter into our minds at all. The mind cannot encounter ‘matter’, but only ideas.

As a small correction, I don’t think it is right to say ‘ideas come from sensory data.’ Sensory data are ideas. I don’t see how some other ‘material substance’ could possibly be translaterd into ideas (even including those called ‘sensory data’).

It seems plausible that the ideas we call ‘sensory data’ are given directly by God, rather than proposing:
The mind of God has an idea
He imprints it on some matter
From the matter, it is then imprinted onto our minds.

The step involving matter seems to be redundant. Ockham’s Razor suggests it be dispensed with.

A further objection to the ‘materialist mythology’. If there is a ‘matter’- what is mind? WHere does it come from? They are irreconcilable, since matter cannot generate anything, let alon mind.

We know there is mind. Matter is only a hypothesis.

What do you think?

 

[oldcelt]

The great error is in step 3. The ideas we have are our own, our intellect forms them from the abstracted forms which the senses abstract from real substances outside the mind. Therefore your conclusion is wrong. Berkeley has been refuted at the outset. He was an idealist.

Linus2nd

I agree completely.

 

[Nihilist]

The great error is in step 3. The ideas we have are our own, our intellect forms them from the abstracted forms which the senses abstract from real substances outside the mind. Therefore your conclusion is wrong. Berkeley has been refuted at the outset. He was an idealist.

Linus2nd

How can in idea be abstracted from a ‘substance’- since the two are unlike in category? How could ‘matter’ generate an idea?

I can have any ‘idea’ of anything I perceive- the stars, a flower, etc., but cannot claim credit for inventing these ideas/ Also, unexpected ideas- such as if I suddenly see something- which indicates that these ideas/mental sensations have a source outside of me. And that source could only be another thing capable of generating ideas- God.

 

[atheistgirl]

The great error is in step 3. The ideas we have are our own, our intellect forms them from the abstracted forms which the senses abstract from real substances outside the mind. Therefore your conclusion is wrong. Berkeley has been refuted at the outset. He was an idealist.

Linus2nd

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it – “I refute it thus.”

Boswell: Life

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The great error is in step 3. The ideas we have are our own, our intellect forms them from the abstracted forms which the senses abstract from real substances outside the mind. Therefore your conclusion is wrong. Berkeley has been refuted at the outset. He was an idealist.

But Berkeley – rightly, I think – argues against the existence of substances (in the material sense of the word).

Where does our idea of substances come from?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How can in idea be abstracted from a ‘substance’- since the two are unlike in category? How could ‘matter’ generate an idea?

I can have any ‘idea’ of anything I perceive- the stars, a flower, etc., but cannot claim credit for inventing these ideas/ Also, unexpected ideas- such as if I suddenly see something- which indicates that these ideas/mental sensations have a source outside of me. And that source could only be another thing capable of generating ideas- God.

The intellect sorts out and organizes the data received from external substances, then the intellect combines and divides this data into universal ideas. Then the will judges that these ideas correspond to the reality of the substances from which the data has been received by the senses. As I said Berkeley has been discredited along with Descartes, etc.

Linus2nd

 

[Nihilist]

But Berkeley – rightly, I think – argues against the existence of substances (in the material sense of the word).

Where does our idea of substances come from?

According to Berkeley, only ideas exist- or at least our experience can only extend to ‘ideas’ (in which he includes sensations). But, the preceived universe (an idea) really does exist but only because it is an idea generated in the mind of God, who communicates it to us.

 

[Nihilist]

The intellect sorts out and organizes the data received from external substances, then the intellect combines and divides this data into universal ideas. Then the will judges that these ideas correspond to the reality of the substances from which the data has been received by the senses. As I said Berkeley has been discredited along with Descartes, etc.

Linus2nd

We know for sure that mind exists, and that ideas exist. We know for sure that some of these ideas are not of our own invention, but superior to our own ideas, therefore a Superior Mind must exist- God.

This seems to be a good proof for the existence of God- since it is based only on absolute certainties. Matter may exist- but, it seems Berkeley’s proof still hold up.

Even if God, for unknown reasons, did choose to use the medium of ‘matter’ to express His creative ideas (though it seems redundant for Him to use such an ‘instrument’), the ideas thereby displayed do nonetheless provide evidence of a Superior Mind.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The intellect sorts out and organizes the data received from external substances, then the intellect combines and divides this data into universal ideas. Then the will judges that these ideas correspond to the reality of the substances from which the data has been received by the senses. As I said Berkeley has been discredited along with Descartes, etc.

The phrase “has been discredited” is irrelevant. Plenty of good philosophy has been discredited.

You claim that we organize data received from external substances. But Berkeley denies that we have any knowledge of such substances, and he has a pretty good argument for it.

1. All our ideas about physical objects come from sensory experience.
2. We only have sensory experiences of qualities of objects. (We cannot have a sensory experience of the object’s material substance).
3. Therefore, we have no idea of what an object’s substance is.

Descartes used the same sort of reasoning to argue (in his ball of wax example) that our idea of substance exists solely in the rational mind, not in the material world. To my mind, either Descartes (the rationalist) or Berkeley (the empiricist) must be right about this dispute. But Descartes makes the unnecessary assumption that we actually HAVE an idea of material substance – though, as Locke demonstrated, the follower of Descartes cannot describe in the least what **content **the idea of substance contains.

In contrast, the idea of God is content-rich, which is one of the reasons God is a preferable hypothesis to material substance.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We know for sure that mind exists, and that ideas exist. We know for sure that some of these ideas are not of our own invention, but superior to our own ideas, therefore a Superior Mind must exist- God.

This seems to be a good proof for the existence of God- since it is based only on absolute certainties. Matter may exist- but, it seems Berkeley’s proof still hold up.

No, I don’t think that’s true. If matter did exist, one would have to launch a separate argument for the existence of God. That seems to be what you were doing, in the following paragraph…

Even if God, for unknown reasons, did choose to use the medium of ‘matter’ to express His creative ideas (though it seems redundant for Him to use such an ‘instrument’), the ideas thereby displayed do nonetheless provide evidence of a Superior Mind.

 

[Nihilist]

No, I don’t think that’s true. If matter did exist, one would have to launch a separate argument for the existence of God. That seems to be what you were doing, in the following paragraph…

Yes, I did weaken, and slip into an error there.

There can be no substance without sensory qualities (color, extension, size, etc.) Now sensory qualities, by definition, are ideas- mental data, which cannot exist without being perceived (a pie cannot be sweet unless someone tastes it!). Therefore, the existence of of these sensory quality (mental data) requires a mind. Since solipsism hardly accounts for the universe, God must exist.

Since matter (if it existed) is inert, it cannot explain the active quality of the Universe, which requires an agent (Spirit/Mind).

 

[inocente]

I have been re-reading Berkeley, and suggest that his proof of God is absolutely convincing. In fact, he does seem to cover all possible objections comprehensively.

Forgetting the old “thus I refute him” business (which seems to be based on a misunderstanding of him anyway), the proof goes:

1. What exists in my head (those things I call ‘sense perceptions’, etc.), are ideas.
2. Ideas can only exist in a thinking subject.
3. But all the ideas in my head are not my own creation or volition, some are merely received by, or communicated to me.
4. Therefore, there must be another mind (much more powerful and wiser than mine), which generates the ideas in my head which are not my own inventions.

I don’t see how, as presented above, it can be refuted.

When I searched for the sentence “But all the ideas in my head are not my own creation or volition, some are merely received by, or communicated to me”, I only got one hit, which was your OP.

I then had the idea that you must be the only person ever to write that exact sentence.

I claim this idea was communicated to me, therefore there must be another mind, which we all call Google.

 

[Oreoracle]

1. What exists in my head (those things I call ‘sense perceptions’, etc.), are ideas.
2. Ideas can only exist in a thinking subject.

These premises seem tautological, so I would have to agree. An idea is, by definition, something a person (subject) thinks of, and the “head” (mind) is just where we imagine that things like thoughts take place. The actual utility of these notions could be debated (neuroscience may eventually render discussion of the mind mostly irrelevant), but I at least provisionally agree based on the definitions of these words. It may turn out that the definitions don’t correspond to anything in reality, however.

1. But all the ideas in my head are not my own creation or volition, some are merely received by, or communicated to me.

The question of where certain ideas originate is interesting. You use a Beethoven symphony as an example of an idea being communicated to you.

Here’s the rub: I can’t actually “communicate” an idea to you directly. I can say something, and you can interpret what I mean based on your knowledge of language. What I say may allow you to form an idea in your head that vaguely resembles mine, or it may inspire you to think in a different way. But ultimately it is you who “constructs” the idea. I am merely the impetus for it; the muse, if you will.

1. Therefore, there must be another mind (much more powerful and wiser than mine), which generates the ideas in my head which are not my own inventions.

Even if this were the conclusion, this isn’t strong enough to guarantee even the creator god of deism, much less other conceptions of gods.

 

[abucs]

It is co-incidental that last night I was thinking about this topic.

It was one of those times when before drifting off to sleep I was watching a parade of visual images on the back of my eyelids. I say my eyelids because I don’t know where else to describe it as my eyes were closed.

I was thinking, usually visual images are produced by light and then a stream of electrons are created and sent to my brain.

Since this was not happening there must be another mechanism which can produce such an experience.

Where does this come from?

From the brain I guess. But then I was noticing that some images were controlled by me and some not. For example, a penguin would just appear without any prompting from myself.

The penguin having appeared though I could (usually) make it taller or a different colour with a bit of effort but I found it much more difficult to see a whole new completely different picture.

Usually the picture ‘emerged’ which could then be adapted by me.

So the “creating images process” involves not only the 2 processes 1) light / electrons and 2) closed eye productions, but also within the latter category pictures that could be adapted by my mind consciously and those that arrived by surprise.

I think it is very difficult to be sure that all thoughts, images, etc can be explained by a defined number of processes, be they physical or otherwise. If we explain one set of experience, that doesn’t mean there isn’t another process that is capable of creating the same experience. In my humble opinion.

 

[Bahman]

I have been re-reading Berkeley, and suggest that his proof of God is absolutely convincing. In fact, he does seem to cover all possible objections comprehensively.

Forgetting the old “thus I refute him” business (which seems to be based on a misunderstanding of him anyway), the proof goes:

1. What exists in my head (those things I call ‘sense perceptions’, etc.), are ideas.
2. Ideas can only exist in a thinking subject.
3. But all the ideas in my head are not my own creation or volition, some are merely received by, or communicated to me.
4. Therefore, there must be another mind (much more powerful and wiser than mine), which generates the ideas in my head which are not my own inventions.

I don’t see how, as presented above, it can be refuted.

The problem is in the third and forth premises. We can say that the knowledge is the result of our efforts but we can say this with absolute certainty. We don’t simply know how the knowledge is constructed in our minds.

Lets assume that knowing a certain amount of ideas we can create a new idea.

1. We can create a new idea knowing a certain amount of ideas
2. This means that we are potentially enough complex to create a new idea out of nothing
3. Complexity is an indefinable quality hence it cannot be created
4. We are primary

It is quite ironic for me to see Catholic people who believe that we are creator of our own ideas not knowing that this assumption leads to the conclusion that we don’t have any creator.