Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God

[The Grand Nudger]

Does it matter what the subtleties of word usage are in an argument that doesn't yield the advertised conclusion?  When you're done hammering them out, the argument -still- won't reach the advertised conclusion....and you'll have spent a significant amount of time -not- discussing the unspoken but, in this case, functional rationalization for your belief.

[Minimalist]

But it allows them a distraction from the fact that their god exists only in their imaginations.

[MrSantaClaus]

The word "reality," as a noun, refers to something's state (or quality) of having existence.

[TheMuslim]

The word "reality," as a noun, refers to something's state (or quality) of having existence.

Not always. It can simply refer to something that is real. Just look up the definition in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. The word reality can refer to "a real event, entity, or state of affairs."

[MrSantaClaus]

That is true.
For example, in the statement "that bunny is reality," the term "reality" refers to a real thing, a bunny.
The statement means that the bunny has existence.

---

"Should reality be annihilated in a specific condition—in a beginning, or an end, or in any particular supposition—then only two situations are conceivable.  The first is that its annihilation is not real, and an equivocal or false claim has been made that reality is annihilated.  In this case, reality is preserved and it has not been annihilated.  The second is that its annihilation is true; that is, reality has really been annihilated.  In this supposition, again, the affirmation of the basic reality is acknowledged, since the supposition asserts that reality has really been destroyed; therefore, as a real phenomenon, the destruction of reality reflects the real presence of reality.  Therefore, the falsehood of sophistry and veridicality of reality is well secured in every perceivable supposition; and a single instance of reality’s destruction is inconceivable."

If the statement "something is real" is claimed to be false, the claim is either true or false. If false, then the statement "something is real" still stands. If "true," the existence of the claimant negates the claim; the claimant exists, and therefore something is real. 

Here is where you got it wrong. The demonstration says nothing about the claimant here, nor does it use the reality of the claimant for purposes of argument. Rather, it's saying that if someone claims "nothing is real", that statement itself - if taken to be true - implies that there is a reality; the purported fact that "nothing exists" would itself be a reality, and hence there would indeed still be a reality (in the form of there not being a reality).

I was slightly bemused by this portion of the POTV earlier. I initially interpreted it in the manner that you seem to have interpreted it, but it doesn't make sense in the way that you put it. The nonexistence of reality (the existence of nothing) is not an existence of reality (an existence of something). It is nonsensical to say that the existence of nothing is a type of existence. I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt as something may have been lost in the translation. I cannot claim that nothing exists because if I am claiming it, I know for certain that I exist. However, the "destruction of reality," or the absence of existence, does not reflect "the real presence of reality," or the existence of something. If the author claims otherwise, I'd say he's wrong.

---

The realm of sophistry’s veridicality is not the abode of the narrator’s existence, in which case its veridicality would pertain to the reality of the narrator.  Rather, its realm of truth is that very supposition, which the proposition reflects.  When, in a given supposition, reality is negated, real negation of philosophy and real affirmation of sophistry is a reality that has been narrated.  Thus, reality is still manifested in the context of its very negation.  For this reason, reality cannot be denied in any supposition; and the primary and self-evident proposition (al-qadhiyya al-awwaliyya al-badīhiyya), which holds its truth, has eternal necessity.

The narrator is not not real (is real). That something is real is not falsifiable.

Well, it isn't exactly trying to say that the narrator is not not real. It's saying that we're not restricting the truth of sophistry to the narrator's reality, in which case its truth would depend on the narrator's existence. Rather, the truth of sophistry abides within the truth of the primary proposition ("there is a reality") - because "when, in a given supposition, reality is negated, real negation of philosophy and real affirmation of sophistry is a reality that has been narrated.  Thus, reality is still manifested in the context of its very negation.  For this reason, reality cannot be denied in any supposition; and the primary and self-evident proposition (al-qadhiyya al-awwaliyya al-badīhiyya), which holds its truth, has eternal necessity."

It starts off by saying "the realm of sophistry's veridicality is not the abode of the narrator's existence." That means that a situation in which nothing exists (a realm of sophistry's veridicality) is not a situation in which the narrator is present (it's not the narrator's abode). That is essentially saying that the narrator is not not real (not not existing). Then it goes on to say "its realm of truth is that very supposition, which the proposition reflects." I'm not entirely sure what is trying to be said here. It seems to be saying that the realm of sophistry's truth, or domain within which nothing exists, is what is supposed by the proposition. This statement is not making a whole bunch of sense. It then says that reality's negation is a reality (and I've explained why that is incorrect.) It says that the idea that "something is real" can never be false. I believe that my summary was correct.

---

Though you have said that you preferred a certain rephrasing from some other paragraph summaries, you haven't disagreed with them. I'll leave them as is.

[TheMuslim]

It is nonsensical to say that the existence of nothing is a type of existence.

It is nonsensical to say that there is no reality. If the claim "there is no reality" is taken to be true, then that would mean that reality really doesn't exist. But if reality really doesn't exist, its non-existence is real - its non-existence is a real phenomenon and state of affairs - its non-existence is a reality. No particular can exist without a universal (even if there is only one instance of a reality, it implies that a reality exists). Hence we have a contradiction - which is precisely why saying such a thing ("there is no reality") is nonsensical.

You may even ignore the above exposition and just read the following and then tell me what part of it you don't understand (or what part of it you don't agree with for logical reasons).

If you say that reality's non-existence is a reality, then you're contradicting yourself (you're saying there's no reality, and yet also implying that that's a reality - hence admitting that a reality exists).

If you say that reality's non-existence is not a reality, then you're saying precisely what the demonstration is saying (i.e. reality's non-existence is not a reality).

[The Grand Nudger]

Still bickering over irrelevance rather than confronting the shortcomings of ones argument..I see.

-and this is why apologists can't have nice things.

[MrSantaClaus]

Still bickering over irrelevance rather than confronting the shortcomings of ones argument..I see.

-and this is why apologists can't have nice things.

I think that defining the terms of the argument is important in demonstrating its incorrectness. I was working to create a summary because the OP provided an unworkable wall of text. However, in my process of getting my summary approved by the OP to allow me to logically rebuke it, we came upon a point of contention in the argument. We are currently discussing that.

[MrSantaClaus]

It is nonsensical to say that the existence of nothing is a type of existence.

It is nonsensical to say that there is no reality. If the claim "there is no reality" is taken to be true, then that would mean that reality really doesn't exist. But if reality really doesn't exist, its non-existence is real - its non-existence is a real phenomenon and state of affairs - its non-existence is a reality. No particular can exist without a universal (even if there is only one instance of a reality, it implies that a reality exists). Hence we have a contradiction - which is precisely why saying such a thing ("there is no reality") is nonsensical.

You may even ignore the above exposition and just read the following and then tell me what part of it you don't understand (or what part of it you don't agree with for logical reasons).

If you say that reality's non-existence is a reality, then you're contradicting yourself (you're saying there's no reality, and yet also implying that that's a reality - hence admitting that a reality exists).

If you say that reality's non-existence is not a reality, then you're saying precisely what the demonstration is saying (i.e. reality's non-existence is not a reality).

Before I respond, I must make clear that I am not saying that nothing is real. I am simply demonstrating why the reasoning you offer in disproving that statement is incorrect.

You are just saying exactly what the text said in a very slightly different manner and repeating yourself. 
Let's look at what "real" means. "Real" means actually existing. If something is said to be real, it is simply being said that it exists.

[MrSantaClaus]

It is nonsensical to say that there is no reality. If the claim "there is no reality" is taken to be true, then that would mean that reality really doesn't exist. But if reality really doesn't exist, its non-existence is real - its non-existence is a real phenomenon and state of affairs - its non-existence is a reality. No particular can exist without a universal (even if there is only one instance of a reality, it implies that a reality exists). Hence we have a contradiction - which is precisely why saying such a thing ("there is no reality") is nonsensical.

You may even ignore the above exposition and just read the following and then tell me what part of it you don't understand (or what part of it you don't agree with for logical reasons).

If you say that reality's non-existence is a reality, then you're contradicting yourself (you're saying there's no reality, and yet also implying that that's a reality - hence admitting that a reality exists).

If you say that reality's non-existence is not a reality, then you're saying precisely what the demonstration is saying (i.e. reality's non-existence is not a reality).

Before I respond, I must make clear that I am not saying that nothing is real. I am simply demonstrating why the reasoning you offer in disproving that statement is incorrect.

You are just saying exactly what the text said in a very slightly different manner and repeating yourself. 
Let's look at what "real" means. "Real" means actually existing. If something is said to be real, it is simply being said that it exists.

I remember pressing "Save as Draft" instead of post reply. I was interrupted in the middle of writing out my response. I can't delete or edit it now.