Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God

[JuliaL]

---

1. Brevity is the soul of wit.

I agree with this 100% and have told this to many of my friends. However, I was just being extra careful not to miss anything and minimize room for confusion. I'll try summarizing it below, but be warned this might come off as different from the actual proof (that is a risk we have to take for brevity's sake).
 

---

Basically we start with the primary proposition of human knowledge: "There is a reality."

OK, I'm with you so far.... However that's as far as I go.  Everything else, particularly for us brains in vats, is speculation.

Reality cannot be annihilated in any condition - because even if everything is nonexistent or is an illusion, the fact that everything is nonexistent or is an illusion is itself a reality. Therefore this proposition ("There is a reality") has eternal necessity.

mybold
What do you mean by "eternal?"  having unlimited extent in time?  Now you've got to be clearer on what you mean by time.  "A" time or "B" time?  Time is the value we insert in predictive equations to make the results match experiment.  If you're using some sort of absolute, universal clock, you need to study time a little more.  Sure, there could have been a cause of time outside of time.  You just need one more dimension we don't know about. But if you're going to try to use your primitive, intuitive concept of time, you'd better make sure it has better predictive value than what the relativists use.

That is, the modality of this proposition is not attributive necessity, conditional necessity, or essential necessity. Since the truth of the propositions. that relate the realities of finite and conditional beings, is subject to certain conditions, and it's only within certain boundaries that they are true, finite and conditional beings cannot be the extension of the reality that has eternal necessity (the reality mentioned in this proposition). Given that the aggregate of finite beings is not another entity, which has something additional to its parts, it does not have any reality at all.

Yet theists generally claim that that humans are more than the sum of their parts.  What you describe is an exact essential of an emergent property.  Human society exhibits many characteristics which are not found in its individual members and can be usefully considered as a super-organism.  I suspect societies' attributes are not infinite, but your claim that this is categoricaly not the case is again, speculative.

  Similarly, their universals (jāmi‛) do not have any external reality either, and they are notions that exist in the mind by the mental mode of existence (al-wujūd al-dhehnī) in such a way that if the mind did not exist, the universals would not even have found the mental existence.  Therefore, the reality, the eternally necessary existence of which is axiomatic and primary, is other than the finite beings, their totality, and their universals, as the first have finite realities, the second has no reality, and the third has a limited mental reality. 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

Whoops!  you made a big jump here going from a "reality" to a "who."  You rationalize this later, but I wanted to highlight it here so you know I didn't miss it.

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.

Now you went from a "who" to a "Him," still without explanation.  Let's keep this gender neutral, shall we?

 So the argument proves the existence of a Necessary Existent that cannot be finite. One mistake that I and one of my atheist friends made was that we tried to understand or visualize the "reality" talked about in the proposition - without even analyzing its extensions as the argument does right after. One you realize what extensions are possible for this reality, you'll see why trying to understand or visualize it would be impossible.

To trace some more divine attributes I sought help from Ibn Sina (Avicenna) from chapter 9 of the book Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays edited by Peter Anderson.

I might have known your arguments would be tenth century.  The Arab civilizations of the mid-east made some great contributions to learning, until Al Ghazali killed it ca. 1100 CE.

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

The POTV (Proof of the Veracious), coupled with some of the sound attribute tracings that I got from Ibn Sina, proves the existence of an entity that is necessary, eternal, self-subsisting, independent, primary, absolute/infinite, unrestricted, unique, one-and-only, omnipresent, immaterial, formless, ineffable, uncaused, doesn't have any rivals, and has all things else depending on it for their existence (the last attribute seems valid only if the principle of causality for contingents is taken as a premise).

You waste a paragraph describing your "ineffable" (definition of ineffable: "cannot be described in words,") dingus.
You're starting to sound like William Lane Craig defining God into reality... "God, if he exists, is morally perfect, necessary, eternal, transcends space and time, Yada, Yada, Yada."  Never a good thing.

To prove the entity's consciousness, I personally came up with the following argument: "Whether or not the entity is conscious may depend on your outlook. If you think that ignorance and unconsciousness are restrictions or limits, then the entity can be considered knowledgeable and conscious (because the entity cannot have restrictions or limits). Or you could say this: Since the entity is absolute/infinite, nothing limits it, and it cannot have any lacks; it must possess all and every degree of existence. Consciousness is a degree/aspect of existence (a rock that is conscious has more existence than an unconscious rock), and since the entity cannot lack anything, it must possess infinite consciousness. The same can be said for knowledge."  One of my atheist friends tried refuting this and you can read our conversation in my original post.

Congratulations, you discovered Anselm.  And your ontological proof is no better than his.
What you claim but fail to show is whether consciousness, which must be a member of an infinite set of all things including consciousness, might not get lost in all that infinity.  What the heck is "infinite" consciousness anyway?  Maybe you should study infinities in addition to time... I recommend starting with Cantor. 
Your conscious rock has "more" existence??? What units do you put on existence so you can scale it more or less?
Theists generally try to keep things vague so they can get away with not being able to usefully interact with "reality."  You really shouldn't do this.  It makes you look bad when compared to scientists and (shudder) engineers.