Responses to Criticism against berkeleyan/Edwardsian Idealism

In my last post I gave my argument for why I am an Idealist. Specifically, to be is to be perceived. The ontological status of the physical world is based upon one's perception of it. In my last post, I answered an objection regarding relativity of idealism, whether physical reality is simply relative to one's perception.

The Problem of Pantheism
The first problem that I want to work with is the problem of pantheism. On facebook, Ryan Mullins brought this problem up:

The physical world is made up of God's thoughts. God's thoughts and actions are equivocal. God's actions are a part of his being. So, the physical world is a part of God's being.

The problem is that neither Berekeley nor Edwards would want to be pantheists. Neither do I. There are a couple of responses an idealist can give. First, is God a simple substance? Second, just because God thinks something, that does not mean it is an thought of God in this particular world. (Abraham inquiring God to consider a change in his plan.) I think God is powerful enough to be able to think of something while not it being revealed to us.

Problem of relations of minds
This is a serious problem for the idealist. It goes like this:

We are God's thoughts, we are ideas of God, our mind's are, but our minds also create ideas and perceive God's ideas. What is the relation between God's mind and our's?

This problem is very serious because the existence of our minds is based upon God's thoughts. I don't know the answer to this question. It's a major problem, but I don't see how it gives reason to say that idealism is false.

3. the boxed God problem
This is a very serious problem for the idealist. It took me a long time to work through this problem:

The idealist is coming to his position based off of problem for the naive and representational realists. God, how the idealist believes he exists, his ontology, is based off other understanding of the world. His beliefs about God do not stem from who God reveals himself, rather they result from responding to how he understands.

I will expand on this in my next post. Note: There is a lot here that needs to be developed. Sorry the Butler game is more important!

Halftime is over, Go Butler!!!!!