If both premises listed above are true, then it is certainly difficult to justify the existence of objects outside of our perception. Philonous strongly supports both of his premises that an object cannot have a taste, smell, sound, etc. Without someone perceiving it, and our ideas of objects (which are made up of our perceptions of that object) cannot represent an external material object itself. One might object to this argument by concluding that Philonous's view of material objects would mean that something could cease to exist when no one perceives it. Berkeley would contrast this assumption with the idea that God always perceives everything, ensuring its continued existence. This position depends on a certainty in the existence of God that I do not share. However, I would question whether this objection really flies in the face of Philonous' philosophy: why does it matter if things continually begin and cease to exist? If we still assume that his argument is true, then we would have no way to disprove this phenomenon since noticing would mean perceiving the object. Therefore, since the argument seems valid and I accept its premises as true, then I must conclude that Philonous's proof is