About this topic
Summary Bennett 1971, ch. 7, identifies in Berkeley's Principles and Dialogues  two arguments for the existence of God. The first he dubs the 'Continuity Argument,' and the second the 'Passivity Argument.' A third argument, known as the 'Divine Language Argument' is found in Alciphron. The Continuity and Passivity Arguments can be seen as variants of the Cosmological Argument, while the Divine Language Argument can be seen as a variant of the Teleological (Design) Argument.
Key works Bennett's classification and nomenclature are challenged by Ayers 1987 and Atherton 1995. Ayers argues that the premise of the so-called 'Continuity Argument' is actually not the continuous existence of bodies, but the existence of bodies independent of human minds. Hence he prefers the term 'Independence Argument.' Atherton denies that the Continuity Argument and the Passivity Argument are really distinct from one another. A more recent comprehensive treatment of Berkeley's arguments and how they fit together can be found in Jesseph 2005.
  Show all references
Related categories
Subcategories:See also:
25 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
Berkeley: Continuity Argument for Theism
  1. M. R. Ayers (1987). Divine Ideas and Berkeley's Proofs of God's Existence. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
  2. Jonathan Bennett (1965). Berkeley and God. Philosophy 40 (153):207 - 221.
    It is well known that Berkeley had two arguments for the existence of God. A while ago, in trying to discover what these arguments are and how they fit into Berkeley's scheme of things, I encountered certain problems which are hardly raised, let alone solved, in the standard commentaries. I think that I have now solved these problems, and in this paper I present my results.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. George Botterill (2007). God and First Person in Berkeley. Philosophy 82 (1):87-114.
    Berkeley claims idealism provides a novel argument for the existence of God. But familiar interpretations of his argument fail to support the conclusion that there is a single omnipotent spirit. A satisfying reconstruction should explain the way Berkeley moves between first person singular and plural, as well as providing a powerful argument, once idealism is accepted. The new interpretation offered here represents the argument as an inference to the best explanation of a shared reality. Consequently, his use of the first (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Douglas M. Jesseph (2005). Berkeley, God, and Explanation. In Christia Mercer (ed.), Early Modern Philosophy: Mind, Matter, and Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
    This paper analyzes Berkeley's arguments for the existence of God in the Principles of Human Knowledge, Three Dialogues, and Alciphron. Where most scholarship has interpreted Berkeley as offering three quite distinct attempted proofs of God's existence, I argue that these are all variations on the strategy of inference to the best explanation. I also consider how this reading of Berkeley connects his conception of God to his views about causation and explanation.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Paul J. Olscamp (1970). George Berkeley's Unique Arguments About God. Studi Internazionali Di Filosofia 2:29-48.
Berkeley: Passivity Argument for Theism
  1. Margaret Atherton (1995). Berkeley Without God. In Robert G. Muehlmann (ed.), Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive, and Critical Essays. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  2. M. R. Ayers (1987). Divine Ideas and Berkeley's Proofs of God's Existence. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
  3. Jonathan Bennett (1965). Berkeley and God. Philosophy 40 (153):207 - 221.
    It is well known that Berkeley had two arguments for the existence of God. A while ago, in trying to discover what these arguments are and how they fit into Berkeley's scheme of things, I encountered certain problems which are hardly raised, let alone solved, in the standard commentaries. I think that I have now solved these problems, and in this paper I present my results.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Douglas M. Jesseph (2005). Berkeley, God, and Explanation. In Christia Mercer (ed.), Early Modern Philosophy: Mind, Matter, and Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
    This paper analyzes Berkeley's arguments for the existence of God in the Principles of Human Knowledge, Three Dialogues, and Alciphron. Where most scholarship has interpreted Berkeley as offering three quite distinct attempted proofs of God's existence, I argue that these are all variations on the strategy of inference to the best explanation. I also consider how this reading of Berkeley connects his conception of God to his views about causation and explanation.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Ekaterina Y. Ksenjek & Daniel E. Flage (2012). Berkeley, the Author of Nature, and the Judeo-Christian God. History of Philosophy Quarterly 29 (3):281-300.
    Does George Berkeley provide an argument for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God at Principles of Human Knowledge, part I, section 29? The standard answer is that he does. In this paper, we challenge that interpretation. First, we look at section 29 in the context of its preceding sections and argue that the most the argument establishes is that there are at least two minds, that is, that the thesis of solipsism is false. Next, we examine the argument in section (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Paul J. Olscamp (1970). George Berkeley's Unique Arguments About God. Studi Internazionali Di Filosofia 2:29-48.
Berkeley: Divine Language Argument for Theism
  1. Margaret Atherton (1995). Berkeley Without God. In Robert G. Muehlmann (ed.), Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive, and Critical Essays. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  2. Donald Edward Baldwin (1978). The Divine Visual Language Argument in George Berkeley's "Alciphron.". Dissertation, University of Missouri - Columbia
  3. Daniele Bertini (2011). Ragioni scientifiche e ragioni teologiche nell'Argument from Design: il caso di Berkeley. Lo Sguardo 6 (2).
    My paper moves from Kant's taxonomy for the arguments for the existence of God. After providing a brief survey of Kant's account, I claim that contemporary arguments from design fit Kant's characterization of the physico-theological argument. Then, in the second section, I deal with the logical frame of the argument from design. In the third section I introduce Berkeley's divine language argument (DLA), in order to demonstrate that DLA is an argument from design. Consequently, in the fourth section, I give (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Walter E. Creery (1972). Berkeley's Argument for a Divine Visual Language. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 (4):212 - 222.
  5. James P. Danaher (2002). Is Berkeley's World a Divine Language? Modern Theology 18 (3):361-373.
    George Berkeley (1685–1753) believed that the visible world was a series of signs that constituted a divine language through which God was speaking to us. Given the nature of language and the nature of the visual world, this paper examines to what extent the visual world could be a divine language and to what extent God could speak to us through it.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Stephen H. Daniel (2001). Berkeley's Pantheistic Discourse. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49 (3):179-194.
    Berkeley's immaterialism has more in common with views developed by Henry More, the mathematician Joseph Raphson, John Toland, and Jonathan Edwards than those of thinkers with whom he is commonly associated (e.g., Malebranche and Locke). The key for recognizing their similarities lies in appreciating how they understand St. Paul's remark that in God "we live and move and have our being" as an invitation to think to God as the space of discourse in which minds and ideas are identified. This (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Michael Hooker (1982). Berkeley's Argument From Design. In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Douglas M. Jesseph (2005). Berkeley, God, and Explanation. In Christia Mercer (ed.), Early Modern Philosophy: Mind, Matter, and Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
    This paper analyzes Berkeley's arguments for the existence of God in the Principles of Human Knowledge, Three Dialogues, and Alciphron. Where most scholarship has interpreted Berkeley as offering three quite distinct attempted proofs of God's existence, I argue that these are all variations on the strategy of inference to the best explanation. I also consider how this reading of Berkeley connects his conception of God to his views about causation and explanation.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. E. G. King (1970). Language, Berkeley, and God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1 (2):112 - 123.
  10. A. David Kline (1987). Berkeley's Divine Language Argument. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel.
  11. Teja Oblak (2003). Berkeley's Alchiphron or the Language of God. Phainomena 43.
    The author of the article presents Berkeley's theory of emotive language as seen in his book Alchiphron or the Minute Philosophy. Through the presentation of Berkeley's book the author tries to present her own interpretation of the emotive language theory and thus descend from the strict metaphysical framework to the grounds of linguistics and religion. By connecting the fields that seem extremely separate from each other, the author endeavours for a sort of re-actualization of the Berkeleyan theory of language. Her (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Paul J. Olscamp (1970). George Berkeley's Unique Arguments About God. Studi Internazionali Di Filosofia 2:29-48.