I just got done with my history of modern philosophy class a couple weeks ago, so this is relatively fresh in my mind. Berkeley runs into a problem between God and volition, which Hume addresses in Book VIII (maybe IX?) of An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. If God is responsible for our ideas, then God must be responsible for evil. But if evil is a defect, then God would not be perfect since he gives us defective ideas. Thus, God couldn't be responsible for our ideas of evil.

I think Berkeley would have been more effective by doing away with both God and the material world, leaving only ideas. Berkeley cannot account for both agency and God, which leads to many contradictions in his system.

I agree with you that Berkeley's system rests of the idea that dualism is wrong, and that the mind is immaterial. The former is in disagreement with Descartes, and the latter is an agreement.

Part two of my attempt to understand 17th and 18th Century philosophy focuses on Berkeley's rejection of the material world. His argument is that while I believe, say, a table to exist, all that exists is the sum-total of the ideas I have about it: its extension; its colour; its texture; its hardness; its sound (e.g. when I knock on it); its smell; and, were I to lick it, its taste. These are nothing more than ideas - the belief in an actual material body causing and/or being represented by these ideas is unjustified.

But this is tantamount to saying induction is unjustified. We gather that material things exist by induction: the relationship between all these ideas are connected (I feel the texture of the table I see); the continuity of identity; the common experience with others; the similarity with other 'ideas' I understand as a table that are nonetheless different (tableness). These and more are the reasons we infer the material table. Berkeley's argument is simply that we have gone too far: only the ideas are present to us, so only the ideas exist - induction is invalid.

Which may be all well and good if Berkeley's whole philosophy didn't depend on by induction inferring the existence of something which is not present to us. In Berkeley's immaterialist world, ideas are perceived or had by us, but are created by an external mind. This external mind exists always irrespective of us. The exact argument Berkeley has against the material world - that all we perceive are the ideas we perceive so these are all that is real - should have disallowed Berkeley from even considering an unperceived external mind.

In truth, all Berkeley has done is said: It's the material world or God, so it's God. The line of reasoning that dismisses the material world is irrelevant - it too would dismiss the external mind, leaving us with nothing but ideas which, imo, would be much more compelling.
...

If God is responsible for our ideas, then God must be responsible for evil. .

I think there needs to be a distinction made between what Berkeley does and 'argument'. All of his so called arguments presuppose his conclusion. Someone please quote for me where Berkeley ever actually makes a serious, non question beggin argument. I'd be much obliged.

Well, he argues that there really is not difference between primary and secondary qualities. I don't see how that is question begging.

I didn't encounter that in the text I read. Could you refer me to something please? Thanks in advance.

unless you are familiar with all of Berkeley's arguments, it was unwise of you to write that all of them beg the question.

In my defense I read all of the Principles and Dialogues :/

Which one of those articles specifically are you referring me to?

The first (veil of perception) and this one:
Berkeley's Argument from Relativity

You mean you read Berkeley and don't know that he argued that Locke's distinction between primary and secondary properties does not work, since however you can determine a primary property, you can also determine a secondary property.

If you read Berkeley on your own, you did not understand him. People cannot just read philosophy like a novel. They need guidance. Have you read a book like, Berkeley by G.J. Warnock? He explains what is in Berkeley to someone who knows little or no philosophy.

Given what you say in another thread, it is surprising that you would provide direction to an article in which it is stated:

[INDENT][INDENT]In reference to Berkeley's philosophy, Dr. Samuel Johnson once kicked a heavy stone and exclaimed, "I refute it thus!" Yet ultimately this refutes nothing (e.g., it could just be the "idea" of pain in kicking the "rock").
[/INDENT][/INDENT]

The Veil of Perception ? Berkeley and Locke: Does Matter Exist or is Matter Simply Ideas?

But my comment here is a digression.

You are, as usual, a good source of information.