In a deposition submitted under oath, Bob Eyer said:
 BE> >I don't see the correlation between what Bloss said and Berkley's
 BE> >philosophy, so I'd have to guess no.  Maybe he'll clarify his
 BE> >position.
 BE> Bloss says it's impossible to understand a universe without
 BE> God.  By that, he could mean, as did Berkeley, that he could not
 BE> perceive the universe unless God caused the universe for him to
 BE> perceive.
    He could, but based on his responses, I don't believe that's what he
 has in mind.
 BE> But the notion of 'cause' cannot be legitimately applied except
 BE> to things of which we have independent evidence.  Since our
 BE> perceptions provide no such independent evidence of God's
 BE> actions, the inference from sensation to God is illegitimate.
    Unfortunately, that is logical.
 BE> Moreover, applying Berkeley's slogan strictly, we would have to
 BE> conclude that God did NOT exist, since we have no perceptions of
 BE> God.
    I think there may be other ways to perceive God than Berkeley's
 methods.  There are certainly rational arguments for his existence.
... Balance the thoughts that release within you.
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------