Very satisfying to read this explanation of Berkeley! I read the Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous in college and was blown away by the economy and soundness of his argument. (It took me a while though to understand him as an empiricist as well as idealist.)

As a possible "in other words" this article's sound and economical explanation... if Pat believed "God" created the world in Pat's mind, and Sam believed she perceived the material world through her senses... the world would look exactly the same to both Pat and Sam, and neither could possibly discover any actual difference in their knowledge of the world. And if Sam could identify a difference, only then could she refute Berkeley.

That's an academically sloppy way to put it. I'm thinking of Wittgenstein's point re another philosophical dispute that Pat and Sam in effect disagree only on what to call their philosophy ("Berkeleyism" vs materialism) and agree on everything else about the nature of the world.