Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God

[Minimalist]

POTV is the strongest proof of the existence of Allah in Islam

I have no doubt that this fairy tale exists in the minds of muslims.  It's anywhere else that needs evidence.... and not that pious prattle that you posted.

[TheMuslim]

I think it's saying that aggregates or groups are not actual entities in and of themselves. For example, "a dozen cars" is not an actual entity apart from its individual constituents. Aggregates or groups are just a concepts or names that refer to a number of actual individual units.

Ok, but can finite entities not be part of an infinite reality?

Please elaborate. Are you asking if finite entities like galaxies can be part of an infinite set of universes? Sure they can, why not. But I don't see how this would lead to a problem in the argument if that's what you're trying to say. As explained before, the argument doesn't take aggregates or groups (whether they have a finite or infinite number of constituents) as actual realities (I take your "Ok" as a sign that you've understood this).

Ok, but none of that or anything else you've said so far explains why you should be able to "argue" your god into existence. Argument is not how things are proven to exist. Evidence is how things are proven to exist. Arguments are not evidence. How do you demonstrate that Allah exists?

Sorry, I knew I should've included more in my original post. Although it is named "Proof of the Veracious", the distinguishing feature about this "argument" is that it isn't technically an argument. It is simply a way of drawing one's attention towards something that was already there. The "argument" does not use any premises - it is based on the very first and primary proposition of human knowledge (i.e. "There is a reality")! The author of the book says on pages 183-184: "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."

Even if this was not the case, I'm sorry to say that I would still disagree with you. I do not think that empirical evidence or sense perception is the only thing that allows us to know reality. Principles like the law of non-contradiction, mathematical laws, and law of causality are not based on empirical evidence or sense perception (although experiments and sense perception tend to agree with them). I don't believe that 2 +2 = 4 because I have tons of empirical evidence and repeated experimental results that confirm this, and nor do I believe in the principle of causality simply because I observe that causes exist in the natural world. It's actually the other way around; scientific theories based on experimentation depend upon the principle of causality (so how can they be the ones that prove it?). Please read: http://thereligionofreason.blogspot.com/...ality.html

I fear that this might turn into a wholly different discussion if we continue to fight down this route. So I guess it would be better to just ignore the last paragraph.

Also, why should I care? You haven't addressed that.

Let's just say that "discovering" an infinitely conscious, infinitely knowledgeable, and omnipresent deity upon which the entire universe depends gives me the same (or more) amount of thrill that a scientist gets when he discovers a new kind of celestial object billions of lightyears away. And I'm here on Atheist Forums just to make sure that such a deity exists. Good enough? 

[robvalue]

It would be very interesting if such a thing was discovered, yes. Sadly, it has not been.

If it's omnipresent, it should be right here next to me. How do I distinguish between this thing being next to me, and nothing being next to me?

[GrandizerII]

Ok, but can finite entities not be part of an infinite reality?

Please elaborate. Are you asking if finite entities like galaxies can be part of an infinite set of universes? Sure they can, why not. But I don't see how this would lead to a problem in the argument if that's what you're trying to say. As explained before, the argument doesn't take aggregates or groups (whether they have a finite or infinite number of constituents) as actual realities (I take your "Ok" as a sign that you've understood this).

Like I said earlier, I'm finding this a bit too confusing to understand, hence why I'm asking questions that may seem a bit silly and not extending from what you're actually arguing.
Ok, I understand your answer to my latest question and will accept it as true unless I realize a flaw with the answer.
So my next question is based on the next quote:

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?

[Alex K]

@TheMuslim

Can you briefly state which properties this proof shows the proven god to have?

[Mystic]

@TheMuslim

Can you briefly state which properties this proof shows the proven god to have?

I think it means God unites all existence and it's features in an ultimate way.  God is everything but nothing in particular. God is each thing at it's ultimate. God is all things without diversity in his essence though. This what this argument proves. 

The reason why was demonstrated in the OP.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Sorry, I knew I should've included more in my original post.

Somehow I don't think that's the problem.

Although it is named "Proof of the Veracious", the distinguishing feature about this "argument" is that it isn't technically an argument. It is simply a way of drawing one's attention towards something that was already there. The "argument" does not use any premises - it is based on the very first and primary proposition of human knowledge (i.e. "There is a reality")! The author of the book says on pages 183-184: "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."

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

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

Even if this was not the case, I'm sorry to say that I would still disagree with you. I do not think that empirical evidence or sense perception is the only thing that allows us to know reality.

I didn't say it's the only thing that allows us to "know reality," I said it's required to prove that something exists. If you can't somehow show me that a thing exists, there's no reason for me to believe that it does.

Principles like the law of non-contradiction, mathematical laws, and law of causality are not based on empirical evidence or sense perception (although experiments and sense perception tend to agree with them).

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.

I don't believe that 2 +2 = 4 because I have tons of empirical evidence and repeated experimental results that confirm this, and nor do I believe in the principle of causality simply because I observe that causes exist in the natural world. It's actually the other way around; scientific theories based on experimentation depend upon the principle of causality (so how can they be the ones that prove it?). Please read: http://thereligionofreason.blogspot.com/...ality.html

I fear that this might turn into a wholly different discussion if we continue to fight down this route. So I guess it would be better to just ignore the last paragraph.

Yeah, it would turn into a discussion where you're expected to demonstrate evidence, but can't, and I'm sure that's what you're wanting to avoid by trying to force us to focus on this magical, god-proving "argument" of yours instead of just asking you for proof. Not gonna work. Show us the proof.

Also, why should I care? You haven't addressed that.

Let's just say that "discovering" an infinitely conscious, infinitely knowledgeable, and omnipresent deity upon which the entire universe depends gives me the same (or more) amount of thrill that a scientist gets when he discovers a new kind of celestial object billions of lightyears away. And I'm here on Atheist Forums just to make sure that such a deity exists. Good enough? 

Except the difference is that when a scientist discovers a new body in the heavens, he can show it to other people so they can confirm it exists. You have no way of distinguishing your god from something that does not exist, except for your feelings. If your feelings are evidence that you're right, why aren't Christians' feelings evidence that they're right? Why don't you apply the same rigor to your own beliefs that you apply to other people's? If you wouldn't accept an argument or a piece of bad evidence for Yahweh, why would you do it for Allah?

[FebruaryOfReason]

Could you explain how we get from this argument to the idea that eating pork and drinking alcohol is bad?

[Alex K]

I think it means God unites all existence and it's features in an ultimate way.  God is everything but nothing in particular. God is each thing at it's ultimate. God is all things without diversity in his essence though. This what this argument proves. 

The reason why was demonstrated in the OP.

Great. Calling that God is highly misleading. You could just as well call it the Universe and be done with it. Nothing about being a person who created us, cares about where we stick what and punishes us and awaits us in an afterlife. Not God. Not YHWH, not Allah.

[Mystic]

I think it means God unites all existence and it's features in an ultimate way.  God is everything but nothing in particular. God is each thing at it's ultimate. God is all things without diversity in his essence though. This what this argument proves. 

The reason why was demonstrated in the OP.

Great. Calling that God is highly misleading. You could just as well call it the Universe and be done with it. Nothing about being a person who created us, cares about where we stick what and punishes us and awaits us in an afterlife. Not God. Not YHWH, not Allah.

Language barrier. Do you remember what the OP said about parts and whole, and why it must be one or simple?