Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
>> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>>> s.j.lagoe@
googlemail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> [snip a dialogue constructed to p[rove a point, ie, one that really
>>> proves nothing at all. ;-) the point to be rpoven appears at the end, thus:
>>>
>>>> A) No I'm not. I've just pointed out that you were mistaken to _only_
>>>> recognize one. But notice how quickly you changed to another when I
>>>> rolled the clay up! You did it with incredible flexibility and speed.
>>>>
>>>> B) But, look, your logic would mean that if noone is there to impose
>>>> that context, well... then there wouldn't be a thing there at all!
>>>>
>>>> A) Exactly.
>>>
>>> Nice riff on George Berkeley. He posited God as the Someone who is always
>>> around, so that the world does in fact exist even when you and me aren't
>>> there to "impose a context."
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wolf Kirchmeir
>>
>> Hi, Wolf, nice to see you in sci.logic again.
>>
>> Does Berkeley's argument work backwards? That is, if things exist
>> even when you and I aren't there to "impose a context", does
>> that prove that God exists?
>>
>> I just can't help asking!
>>
>> --
>> hz
>
> Well, Berkeley thought so, but I don't. :-) IMO, "working backwards" on
> Berkeley's argument amounts inferring an antecedent from a consequent.
> I'm rereading Berkeley's essay (after about 40 years!), and haven;'t
> come to the god bit yet. Found the essay when I started culling books.
I suppose I could have asked the question in a more ostentatiously logical
manner by asking about the converse of Berkeley's argument. :-)
> Thanks for your welcome, I don't actually subscribe to sci.logic, this
> thread was cross posted.
I figured that, but it's nice to see your as-usual clarifying contribution
anyway!
--
hz
