Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God

[TheMuslim]

Therefore, the first ontological proposition, which the human being cannot not know, is the affirmation of the basic reality, and its modality is eternal necessity.  And since, as just explained, finite entities, such as the heavens, the earth, the cosmos, and so forth, cannot be the extension of this proposition, its extension is only an Absolute Reality—Who is above the restrictions of conditions, is present with all of the finite realities, and no absence or termination is perceivable with respect to Him.

Bold mine. Why must there be such an extension? Will basic reality not suffice?

Here the word "absolute" is synonymous to "infinite". Why must its extension be an infinite reality? That has been explained before, in the part that says that the extension of this reality cannot be the finite beings, their totality, and their universals. Since its extension cannot be among the finite beings, it logically follows that the extension must be an infinite being. Also, let's be careful about not making judgments or understanding the nature of this "reality" prior to logically analyzing its extensions as the argument does.

Yes, they are. The only reason those exist is that we've observed them to be true. Math, non-contradiction, and causality are all based on things we observe in reality. When "experiments...tend to agree" with something, that's called empirical evidence.

No, they're not. If you read the blog post I mentioned, you would've seen that the principle of causality doesn't depend on experimental results. In fact, it is the converse; experiments and their generalizations depend upon the principle of causality. Either you didn't read it (and then mustered the courage to continue talking with ignorance) or it just didn't make it through your head. I also mentioned that unlike you, I do not believe 2 + 2 = 4 simply because I have tons of empirical evidence and experimental results for its truth. And I do not think the validity of my argument will be affected even if viewed with such an extremist empiricist lens, because even empiricists like you (hopefully) don't deny the necessity and usefulness of using reason and logic to analyze the implications of facts and/or evidence (see the last point of this post).

Maybe I have misunderstood the subtleties of this argument, but;

How did God manage for the several billion years before we affirmed his existence by denying it? Was he independently rendered extant by some other mechanism than our denial of his existence, and just used our denial as a sort of back up when it became available?

Presumably the opposite doesn't apply? I.e. If we believe in him, that proves he exists? 

And also,

The existence of a mechanism of conscious denial does not in itself affirm anything remotely relating to the various Abrahamic conceptions of God, which all envisage a combination of a highly vindictive micro-manager (grow a beard, don't eat pork or shellfish, don't wear mixed fabrics, etc) and an absentee landlord, who allows the death of millions in plagues and natural disasters, whilst rewarding cheating, adulterous, drunken sports stars with undeserved riches.

How does it follow that because I am sentient enough to recognise the flaws in the idea of God the Creator, that my sentience affirms His existence? I can recognise the flaws in the idea of Ganesh the Elephant God too. Does it follow from that that He exists?

The problem here is that we can all talk forever about things that we think are right. 
But unless we have any means of checking we are right, how can we know?

You have completely misunderstood the entire argument. Did you even bother to read or did you just assume that my argument was some other one that you read a while back?

Wait...that's the argument? That because we're able to deny god, it must exist? No wonder he stretched it into 10 pages of text. It would have seemed asinine otherwise.

If I deny that Bigfoot exists, does that mean Bigfoot exists?

I knew it. You're relying on your equally intellectually deficient atheist buddies to do the work. Are you afraid that it might be a sound argument? If not, why don't you actually read it and refute it so that I can shut up and leave?

If your "argument" doesn't use any premises, then why does the very quote you used reference the premises of the argument?

The quote does not reference premises of the argument. Wake up.

Also, regardless of what it "technically" is, it's still not a piece of evidence, and evidence is what's required to prove a thing exists. If you can't show it, you don't know it

Ah, little children. Just because you can't see or feel something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you realize the stupidity of asking to see and feel an infinite being? You may ask why I am assuming that you're asking to see and feel it. It's because apparently you won't accept any other mode of evidence.

I found that a proposition ("There is a reality") was true in every situation, and I presented the logical implications of this "observation". That's really all what the argument is. Consider me a scientist that discovers a fact or observation and then proceeds to logically analyze its implications. That's all I'm doing.

Look at the original "proposition" as a fact that I discovered, i.e. evidence (definition of evidence is: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid), and the rest of the "argument" is simply an in-depth analysis of its logical implications.

Note: I will be going on vacation for a couple weeks, so I might not respond to this thread for some time. Thanks to everyone who contributed and/or attempted to refute the argument.