In a deposition submitted under oath, Bob Eyer said:
 BE>  MB>> He exists because it would be impossible for my limited
 BE>  MB>>  imagination to understand a universe _without_ God.
 BE> >God's existence or non-existence does not hinge on the strength or
 BE> >weakness of your imagination.  He is either there or he isn't,
 BE> >independent of you.
 BE> Isn't Bloss rather suggesting that God DOES exist independent of
 BE> him?
 BE> His formulation above reminds me of Bishop Berkeley, who argued
 BE> that God, as the all-perceiver, was necessary to maintain objects
 BE> in between human perceptions of them, by perceiving them when
 BE> humans didn't.  Otherwise, they would cease to exist, since we are
 BE> directly aware only of human perceptions.  This is how Berkeley
 BE> explained the continuity of material things in time.
    I don't see the correlation between what Bloss said and Berkley's
 philosophy, so I'd have to guess no.  Maybe he'll clarify his position.
    Either notion--that God's existence depends on the strength of
 Mark's imagination, or Berkley's philosophy that God has to constantly
 expend energy and/or attention perceiving everything in the universe to
 keep it all in existence--is completely ludicrous to me.
 BE> Similarly, Bloss seems to be suggesting that the universe would
 BE> only be a sense-datum to his imagination, unless he could assume
 BE> that God's perceptions of the universe accounted for its
 BE> continuity.
    We're all a figment of God's imagination?  Who knows, but that
 would, if true, also discount the idea that God exists because Bloss
 cannot imagine it otherwise.  On the contrary, everything would then
 depend on God's imagination, not Mark's, unless Mark is God.
... Vertu to sewe and vices for to fle, were he mytre, coroune or dyademe.
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------