On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
> But it does depend on the existence and, more specifically,
> *observation* of God. "To be is to be perceived," is how he puts it,
> IIRC. Berkley concluded (if I'm remembering the class I took 11 years
> ago correctly) in his own twisty way that there is no "thing in
> itself" and that our senses apprehend reality directly because we get
> what amounts to a direct feed of empirical data from God. The reason
> a tree makes a sound in the forest when nobody's there to hear it is
> because God hears it, basically.
Berkley had some sort of proof for the existence of God, IIRC. Does
anyone have all the salient details on that, and if so, could said person
post them? Thanks.
Julia
