Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God

[Redbeard The Pink]

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.

According to some blogger. Cool.


"Depends on" and "is based on" are slightly different concepts, but either way I think we might just be misunderstanding each other. The principle might not "depend" on empirical data to function or exist in and of itself, but the reason we observe/discover the principle is that we observe it empirically, so yes, our concept and definition of the Principle of Causality is directly based on the fact that we observe it empirically.

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'm simply addressing assertions you've made in your posts. Their source is not my concern. You're the one asserting them here.

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.

I do not care why you believe 2 + 2 = 4. Seriously, I don't care at all. The fact remains that the only reason anybody believes 2 + 2 = 4 is that somewhere along the way somebody figured out how to observe and demonstrate that in objective reality and then came up with a way to represent it conceptually (that is a vast oversimplification of the invention and development of math, but the point is that math primarily exists to describe objects in reality, and the reason it's useful is that it can be demonstrated to accurately describe and predict objectively real things).

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).

We still haven't gotten to the part where you explain why an argument alone proves anything, ever, at all. It doesn't matter how "sound" your argument is. What matters is what the premises are based on, and to use an argument to prove that something exists in objective reality, you have to use premises that are based on evidence that's demonstrable in objective reality. You cannot claim something exists without good reason and have any expectation of being believed by a skeptical person.

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 everybody like you shut up and left, I'd barely have any reason to come here and post.


And no, I'm not afraid of your cute little argument. Like I said, the "soundness" doesn't matter. It's possible to construct a logically sound argument on premises that are incorrect or even entirely fictional. As long as the conclusion of the argument follows from the assertions in the premises, the argument will be considered "sound," but if the premises are flawed or simply incorrect then there's no reason to believe the conclusion is actually true, even if the argument itself is sound.

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

"The demonstration of the veracious, in fact, does not intend to prove a reality, which is unknown and must be proved in a discursive fashion.  It proves the primariness (al‑awwaliyya) of human knowledge with respect to a proposition, which narrates the eternal necessity of the Entity.  If the demonstration were designed to prove a reality that has eternal necessity, its conclusion would not be the first ontological proposition, because every demonstration proceeds from certain premises to a conclusion, and given that the premises are antecedent (muqaddam) to the conclusion, the premises—the truth of which substantiate the existence of the Deity—would be propositional premises for the conclusion."

(Bold mine)


What's this then?

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.

You're right. Some things can be accepted even though I can't see or feel them because those things can still be demonstrated to me with evidence, which I can see and feel.


For instance, I can't necessarily see or feel the evolutionary processes that caused life to progress to the point that it produced me, but I can see and feel the evidence in nature that those processes took place (fossils), and I can see and feel the evidence in nature that those processes are still going on (DNA).


You, on the other hand, are asking me to believe in the existence of something that you can't demonstrate with any evidence because you've cooked up a philosophical argument that you think is logically sound, even though it's not based on anything we observe in objective reality (except for the mere existence of that reality, which isn't enough). You cannot claim knowledge of that which you cannot demonstrate to be true. If you can't show it, you don't know it...you just believe it, and if you believe without evidence, that's faith, which is the most intellectually dishonest position it's possible to hold.

Do you realize the stupidity of asking to see and feel an infinite being?

What is it about being "infinite" that would suggest I shouldn't be able to see or feel it, or at least the evidence it leaves behind? "Infinite" and "invisible" are two different words, are they not?


Regardless of whether Allah is "infinite," you're positing the existence of an extra-dimensional being that affects physical reality, are you not? If he affects physical reality at any time in any way, he should be leaving behind evidence of his interference. If he deliberately withholds evidence so that we have to believe on faith instead of with the reasoning brains he gave us, then he is, quite frankly, a dick.

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 either want to see and feel it, or I want to be looking at it through a scientific instrument that allows me to see and feel it. If you have evidence of your god, produce it. If you don't, no argument will support that conclusion.


Evidence is that which shows something to be true. It is by definition something that you show someone (or yourself, even). That is practically its only job. An argument isn't evidence, and it can't demonstrate the existence of something unless its premises are based on 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.

There is no logical way to get from "There is a reality" to "That reality was created by an extra-dimensional, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, all-loving, misogynistic rape-monster," even with a text-wall like the one in the OP. For that position, you would need additional evidence (or I would, anyway).

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.

Like I said, the mere existence of reality does not imply the existence of your god, and there is no logical way to get there. To demonstrate that your god exists, you have to actually demonstrate that your god exists.