Sewell to Bloss, 4-02-98:
-------------------------
 MB>> He exists because it would be impossible for my limited
 MB>>  imagination to understand a universe _without_ God.
>God's existence or non-existence does not hinge on the strength or
>weakness of your imagination.  He is either there or he isn't,
>independent of you.
Isn't Bloss rather suggesting that God DOES exist independent of
him?
His formulation above reminds me of Bishop Berkeley, who argued
that God, as the all-perceiver, was necessary to maintain objects
in between human perceptions of them, by perceiving them when
humans didn't.  Otherwise, they would cease to exist, since we are
directly aware only of human perceptions.  This is how Berkeley
explained the continuity of material things in time.
Similarly, Bloss seems to be suggesting that the universe would
only be a sense-datum to his imagination, unless he could assume
that God's perceptions of the universe accounted for its
continuity.
Bob
---------------