Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God

[ReptilianPeon]

Yeah...if the Quran was clear on the whole Imam things, Shias wouldn't be arguing amoungst themselves on how many Imams there are. We would know:
1. This is how many Imams were are supposed to be, and preventing arguments between the Islmalis, Twelvers and Zaidis.
2. Which people are the correct Imams to submit to.
3. If Aga Khan IV is somebody worth paying attention to.

[The Grand Nudger]

Saying that "1" itself -the number- is God; like building a shrine with a big statue that looks like number "1" and bow to it, that's what I mean by "brain damage", I should've said "ignorance in language" instead, if I was to be nice, and "a waste of time/ an act of disregard" if I was to be rude ..

-and yet that's exactly what the text says...you seem to be interpreting.  That's okay...it;s not as if you could read anything -without- doing so.  

Tell me what this sentence means? - Anne is having her children for dinner.

Is the color "red" really red? is blue "really" blue?
Like does reality really is reality? or is it flipped in reality? is "X" really "X"?

All good questions.  Why does greek literature refer to the "wine dark sea".....was the ocean red...then?

I guess you got my point..The power of syntax and semantics, is to "understand each other" as we speak, i.e taking the meanings -semantics- as they are, represented in the correct form of syntax, or let's say Grammar; the syntax support em semantics, so left means left and right means right, there is no out of it..linguistically I mean

Perhaps you should show a little more respect for the fluidity and ambiguity of language, particularly poetry..since you worship a book?

BTW, I don't think we even follow the same faith.

Yes, yes, we know...True Muslims™ and all that jazz.

[pocaracas]

Is the color "red" really red? is blue "really" blue?
Like does reality really is reality? or is it flipped in reality? is "X" really "X"?

All good questions.  Why does greek literature refer to the "wine dark sea".....was the ocean red...then?

I remember reading or watching somewhere that the color blue was pretty much non-existent in the literature of old.... and it only shows up in the middle-age or so...

http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-could...h-suggests

[WinterHold]

Yeah...if the Quran was clear on the whole Imam things, Shias wouldn't be arguing amoungst themselves on how many Imams there are. We would know:
1. This is how many Imams were are supposed to be, and preventing arguments between the Islmalis, Twelvers and Zaidis.
2. Which people are the correct Imams to submit to.
3. If Aga Khan IV is somebody worth paying attention to.

The Shia faith -as with the Sunni faith- actually view the Quran as an inferior book that needs a support by the large volumes of Hadith; the faiths won't say it explicitly, but the sentence "the Hadith explains the quran" is in itself; just saying what I said now with a more "polite" way.

So, it's very legit for the believers of that faith, to adopt a thought even if it's not mentioned in the source, just because some scholars wrote that and said so.
and the difference between twelvers and zaidis is also a good point.

[ReptilianPeon]

I always was suspicious of the Hadith. It sounded stupid to me. What you're trying to say is, and I agree, the people who use Hadith are saying the Quran is not clear enough so they need help because they cannot understand the Quran without them. And it's not just the Hadith, they need all kinds of other literature.

For Christians the Bible is enough...and if you want to know more you can go to university or Bible school to learn the history and influence. But for Shia, Sunni and Ibadi they have to use Hadith because they need a helping hand. Thousands and thousands of pages of Hadith. Are the Tasfir scholars not good enough?

So of course people cannot agree on the Quran. What you mean to say is: The Hadith have corrupted peoples' view of the Quran. There are so many Hadith collections and Hadith a lifetime would not be enough to examine them all in detail.

[The Grand Nudger]

The idea that the bible is enough for christians is fiction.  Look at how many we have here with their "arguments" and "evidence". All people of faith step out of the book. They can't help it....the books aren't exactly what they claim them to be.

[Pat Mustard]

Completely forgot. Yes, indeed. And the Killala Bay Blue High Gloss paint dried for our sins.

I fucking hope it did. I've to second coat the top of the table tomorrow.

[TheMuslim]

I've made an even better summary of the Demonstration of the Veracious (DOTV) for everyone. The DOTV proves (or simply brings our attention to) the existence of an infinite Necessary Existent. It does not prove the existence of a deity, at least not without some attribute tracings that come thereafter. But once the existence of an infinite Necessary Existent is known, the tracings make it apparent that this thing can be called a deity. But what we need to know first is whether there even is an infinite Necessary Existent, and that is why I'm here on this forum. That's all I want to confirm right now. Here is the DOTV, Allamah Tabatabai's version, simplified and summarized by me:

We start off with the primary proposition “There is at least one reality”. This proposition must be true in every real condition, because such conditions are themselves realities – and thus they themselves confirm the truth of the primary proposition. Since the proposition is eternally necessarily true in every real condition, the extension of the reality mentioned in the proposition must be an eternally necessarily existing reality (or realities), i.e. a Necessary Existent(s). A Necessary Existent cannot be a finite reality because a Necessary Existent exists unconditionally – but finite realities only exist within certain conditions, outside of which they don't exist (which is why they’re called finite). So there must be an absolute, infinite Necessary Existent(s).

I challenge every atheist here to find anything illogical in this proof for an infinite Necessary Existent. Everyone who has posted so far has failed to do so, for reasons elaborated in my responses.

[robvalue]

We only have one reality we can observe, and we have no way of knowing if any of our logic or knowledge makes any sense to it externally. Simply insisting that it does is just assuming the conclusion.

"Finite realities only exist within certain conditions"... what does this mean, and where did this information come from? We don't even know if our own reality is finite or not, and we certainly don't know what requirements there are for it to exist. This is just plain making stuff up.

Our reality being the only one presents no logical problems. I'm not saying it is; just that you can't rule it out with mere logical arguments.

What is a deity anyway? Can a slug be a deity if it unwittingly created everything else from nothing?

And why should I care about any of this?

[GrandizerII]

I've made an even better summary of the Demonstration of the Veracious (DOTV) for everyone. The DOTV proves (or simply brings our attention to) the existence of an infinite Necessary Existent. It does not prove the existence of a deity, at least not without some attribute tracings that come thereafter. But once the existence of an infinite Necessary Existent is known, the tracings make it apparent that this thing can be called a deity. But what we need to know first is whether there even is an infinite Necessary Existent, and that is why I'm here on this forum. That's all I want to confirm right now. Here is the DOTV, Allamah Tabatabai's version, simplified and summarized by me:

We start off with the primary proposition “There is at least one reality”. This proposition must be true in every real condition, because such conditions are themselves realities – and thus they themselves confirm the truth of the primary proposition. Since the proposition is eternally necessarily true in every real condition, the extension of the reality mentioned in the proposition must be an eternally necessarily existing reality (or realities), i.e. a Necessary Existent(s). A Necessary Existent cannot be a finite reality because a Necessary Existent exists unconditionally – but finite realities only exist within certain conditions, outside of which they don't exist (which is why they’re called finite). So there must be an absolute, infinite Necessary Existent(s).

I challenge every atheist here to find anything illogical in this proof for an infinite Necessary Existent. Everyone who has posted so far has failed to do so, for reasons elaborated in my responses.

Even so, it gets us nowhere closer to the mainstream deist/Abrahamic concept of God. The fuller universe itself may be in whole, or part of, the infinite necessary reality. Or perhaps it's something to do with the multiverse or whatever.