BQ48

Class Responses and Instructor Comments

>From nr:

i really dont understand this question...does it have to do with God or sensory perception?

>rm says: Both really. Why does Berekeley think that we could have had the sense perceptions we actually do have, but without the existence of physical objects?

>From KAI YU and WAI YAN:

since God created physical objects, then he would have to preserve the objects, so why not cut out his work? why not plant it straight to our mind?

rm says: The end of this question is on target, though I'm not sure the problem is the preservation of objects. Doesn't the problem arise from the mere creation?

Berkeley Reading Guide 48. "God might have done everything as well without them..." (§53) Explain.		Back to Berkeley Reading Guide Back to Philosophy 101 Home Next Question
Enter your response to the above question, or to a previous response, in the form below, or use this email link. I will post your response on the right, and comment if I think I can be helpful. When emailing, instead of using the form, please indicate the question number. When using the form below, if you neglect to enter your name or email, I won't know who you are.	Class Responses and Instructor Comments >From nr: i really dont understand this question...does it have to do with God or sensory perception? >rm says: Both really. Why does Berekeley think that we could have had the sense perceptions we actually do have, but without the existence of physical objects? >From KAI YU and WAI YAN: since God created physical objects, then he would have to preserve the objects, so why not cut out his work? why not plant it straight to our mind? rm says: The end of this question is on target, though I'm not sure the problem is the preservation of objects. Doesn't the problem arise from the mere creation?
Write your comments here: Your Name: Your email: