B0ycey wrote:Unfortunately I don't have the time to rebutted this, but Berkerley's conclusion that perception requires the need for a God doesn't remove the philosophical elements of his work.
I never said it did, but to call yourself a Berekelyan immaterialist is inaccurate.
B0ycey wrote:Nor is it essential to appreciate it.
I don't deny this.
B0ycey wrote:Until then I maintain I am Berkelyen in some extent
Your qualification here is necessary, so you are a berkeleyan in the same way that you are Christian because you believe the golden rule seems like a good idea.
B0ycey wrote:Nothing we perceive is real. Our minds create the universe around us. It is that simple.
This is also not in Berkeley. This is not Berkeleyan at all and is a caricature.
Berkeley did not deny the reality of the world,
he just denied that it had a mind-independent reality and origination. The table is real, because what makes it real is its sensible qualities: "hardness, brownness, etc."
Furthermore,
Berkeley denied that "our minds" create the world around us. According to Berkeley, when it comes to the perception of created beings (humans)
our mind is passive. We receive our phenomenal states
extra seIf you merely deny the existence of matter and physical causation, I would say you are well on your way, but you have not graduated from Hume to the real master; the good Bishop.
I can show you how preposterous your claims are and why you should join Christian theism, philosophically speaking.
I can bring you to the true position from which Berkeley's Immaterialism really originated, and by his design no less.