Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God

[Mister Agenda]

Welcome, TheMuslim. I hope you will consider posting on the Introductions Page.

If the core of your point is necessary existence; there's some reasoning in physics that seems pretty convincing to me that quantum foam must exist. Perhaps not coincidentally, it has the potential to spawn universes, probably more than we can comprehend.

[Mister Agenda]

Your idea of the word "Allah" is unfortunately tinged with qualities from Islamic literature, which is often filled with anthropomorphic descriptions of Allah according to Sunni Islam (the majority of Muslims, about 90%, follow Sunni Islam - which explains their larger share in Islamic literature).

I, however, think of "Allah" in a way more accurately confined to the word's linguistic and literal Arabic meaning.

The DOTV, coupled with some of Ibn Sina's attribute tracings that I found sound, proves the existence of an entity that is necessary, eternal, one-and-only, immaterial, omnipresent, self-subsisting, independent, primary, absolute/infinite, unrestricted, unique, formless, ineffable, uncaused, without 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). If you include my additional arguments regarding consciousness, this entity can be called conscious.

In light of the above description, I am satisfied in calling such an entity a deity. And the connotation that I get from the word "Allah" fits this description perfectly. Others may get a more anthropomorphic impression from that same word (e.g. Sunnis), others may harbor a more pantheistic impression (e.g. Imam Khomeini and Ibn Arabi), others may get an impersonal impression from it (e.g. Arabic deists), and yet others may even get a more polytheistic impression (e.g. pre-Islamic Arabs). It is simply a matter of perspective and semantics, not of being disingenuous.

That's not a bad description of quantum foam.

[Minimalist]

"Eternal necessity is other than essential necessity (al-dharūra al-dhātiyya), attributive necessity (al-dharūra al-wasfiyya), conditional necessity (al-dharūra al-shartiyya), and other similar sorts of necessities. In attributive and conditional necessities, the affirmation of a predicate for its subject is necessary provided the pertinent attribute or condition is secured. Likewise, in essential necessity, affirmation of a predicate for its subject is restricted to the continuance of the existence of the subject; in other words, the predicate is affirmed for the subject as long as the subject is existent. Eternal necessity is instantiated when the affirmation of the predicate for its subject is not restricted by any condition or attribute, and not even by the continuance of subject’s existence. Therefore, in eternal necessity, the predicate is affirmed for the subject in every state."

It always strikes me as odd the necessity that muslims feel to include arabic words, even if transposed to the latin alphabet...
It's like arabic has some special property that will make us non-speakers aware of the veracity of what's being said/written.

Here, try to see if this makes any sense:
- In the days of old (antigamente), people were more in tune (mais atentas) with their natural surroundings (à natureza). There were the druids (druídas) and the shamans (shamãs) who mediated the spirit and the natural worlds.

Did that translation add anything to the english text?

It always strikes me as odd the necessity that muslims feel to include arabic words, even if transposed to the latin alphabet...

I regard that tendency as 'pompous twitism.'

[Mudhammam]

I might as well be troubled by the infinity that is already suspected than the one that is anthropomorphized as a solution to. . . infinity.

Right. But perhaps the anthropomorphization can be excused by the fact that the infinite--the "I AM"--is a concept that exists in anthropic entities which appear to be expressions, instruments, manifestations, attributes, and/or etc., of the infinite whateverness.   

[MrSantaClaus]

As is evident from many of the comments, few have bothered to actually read the post before commenting. I have summarized it below for anyone who is unwilling to wade through its jargon.

A brief summary of the POTV as presented by TheMuslim:-
- Something is real.
- It is impossible for nothing to be real (in the event that this statement is denied, there is something that denies it and is real). If this statement can never be denied, it will always be true.
- For this statement to be always true, something must always exist.
- Finite, conditional beings exist within boundaries, beyond which they are nonexistent.
- As such, something that is infinite, or not conditional, must exist.

TheMuslim believes that this demonstrates the existence of a deity.

[pocaracas]

Awesome job summing it all up!

As is evident from many of the comments, few have bothered to actually read the post before commenting. I have summarized it below for anyone who is unwilling to wade through its jargon.

A brief summary of the POTV as presented by TheMuslim:-
- Something is real.
- It is impossible for nothing to be real (in the event that this statement is denied, there is something that denies it and is real). If this statement can never be denied, it will always be true.

Some cosmologists will tell you that the sum of all energy (and mass is included here) in the Universe, is ZERO. Hence, all existence is... nothing...?!

- For this statement to be always true, something must always exist.
- Finite, conditional beings exist within boundaries, beyond which they are nonexistent.
- As such, something that is infinite, or not conditional, must exist.

TheMuslim believes that this demonstrates the existence of a deity.

Always is such a long time...

[MrSantaClaus]

Before I speak on the veridicality (eh?) of the POTV, I am writing up a summary that I want the OP to approve. Please tell me if this summary suffices.
"The point towards which ‛Allāmah Tabātabā’ī draws attention is that the proposition “There is a reality,” and the proposition “Sophistry is void,” have eternal necessity.  That is, the modality of these propositions is not attributive, conditional, or essential necessity.  Acceptance of this claim, like acceptance of reality, needs mere drawing of one’s attention (tanbīh).  In other words, just as the entertainment of the concept of reality is sufficient to acknowledge its truth, the conception of the notion of eternal necessity of reality is sufficient for accepting its validity. A human being cannot accept sophistry in any situation or condition, since situations and conditions are realities, which attest to the invalidity of sophistry, which is the negation of reality."
Something exists.

"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. 

"A proposition, which negates reality, is a proposition, that neither its veridicality can be related in any supposition, nor its falsehood could ever be doubted.  That is, its utterance always presupposes its own falsity. On the other side of the spectrum, it is impossible to doubt the meaning of the proposition, which affirms reality, because dismissing it as meaningless or doubting its meaning entails the affirmation of reality."

Any claim that nothing is real is undoubtedly false. 

"If, like a finite being, reality lacked eternal necessity and its necessity were conditional, say, with the continuance of its existence (al‑dharūra al‑dhātiyya), sophism would have had veridicality in the realm of reality’s destruction.  Nevertheless, the veridicality of sophistry is a reality, which has its own specific nafs al-amr."

If the existence of at least something was conditional, it would be possible for nothing to exist. We have shown that this is not possible.

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.

Since the truth of the propositions, which relate reality of finite and conditional beings, is subject to certain conditions, and it is only within certain boundaries that they are true, beyond which they are false, finite and conditional beings cannot be the extension (misdāq) of the reality that has eternal necessity.

Finite beings only exist within certain boundaries, outside of which they don't exist. For the statement "something is real" to always be true, something other than finite beings must exist.

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.  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 to exist, the universals would not even have found the mental existence.  Therefore, 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.

The aggregate (the entirety) of anything is essentially the sum of its parts and nothing more. Aggregates of finite beings can be said to not exist. For the statement "something must exist" to be true, something other than finite things or aggregates must exist.

"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."

The statement "something exists" must always be true. Something must exist that cannot cease to exist.

The text then continues and talks about the proof, but it has nothing of import to offer to the overall argument.

OP says that this argument, the POTV, and a few attribute tracings prove the existence of something 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." He then beckons readers to focus and not spew crap.

[TheMuslim]

MrSantaClaus,

I am writing up a summary that I want the OP to approve. Please tell me if this summary suffices.

Alright, I can take a look.

"The point towards which ‛Allāmah Tabātabā’ī draws attention is that the proposition “There is a reality,” and the proposition “Sophistry is void,” have eternal necessity.  That is, the modality of these propositions is not attributive, conditional, or essential necessity.  Acceptance of this claim, like acceptance of reality, needs mere drawing of one’s attention (tanbīh).  In other words, just as the entertainment of the concept of reality is sufficient to acknowledge its truth, the conception of the notion of eternal necessity of reality is sufficient for accepting its validity. A human being cannot accept sophistry in any situation or condition, since situations and conditions are realities, which attest to the invalidity of sophistry, which is the negation of reality."

Something exists.

Yup, something, regardless of what or in what form, exists. As the demonstration says, "there is a reality."

"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).

"A proposition, which negates reality, is a proposition, that neither its veridicality can be related in any supposition, nor its falsehood could ever be doubted.  That is, its utterance always presupposes its own falsity. On the other side of the spectrum, it is impossible to doubt the meaning of the proposition, which affirms reality, because dismissing it as meaningless or doubting its meaning entails the affirmation of reality."

Any claim that nothing is real is undoubtedly false. 

Yes, as shown in the previous point.

"If, like a finite being, reality lacked eternal necessity and its necessity were conditional, say, with the continuance of its existence (al‑dharūra al‑dhātiyya), sophism would have had veridicality in the realm of reality’s destruction.  Nevertheless, the veridicality of sophistry is a reality, which has its own specific nafs al-amr."

If the existence of at least something was conditional, it would be possible for nothing to exist. We have shown that this is not possible.

The fact that at least something exists, or that "there is a reality", cannot be falsifiable in any condition - as shown in the previous point - and therefore the existence of that reality is not conditional. Finite beings are conditional (i.e. they exist only in certain conditions) and thus this reality (the reality mentioned in the proposition "there is a reality") cannot be finite. So yeah.

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."

Since the truth of the propositions, which relate reality of finite and conditional beings, is subject to certain conditions, and it is only within certain boundaries that they are true, beyond which they are false, finite and conditional beings cannot be the extension (misdāq) of the reality that has eternal necessity.

Finite beings only exist within certain boundaries, outside of which they don't exist. For the statement "something is real" to always be true, something other than finite beings must exist.

See the second last point before this point. Propositions that narrate the reality of finite beings are conditional (i.e. it is only within certain boundaries that such propositions are true, beyond which they are false - because finite entities can only exist within certain boundaries). The proposition for this reality, however, is unconditional. Hence finite and conditional beings cannot be the extension (misdāq) of the reality in our primary proposition ("there is a reality").

And yeah, I like the way you put it (more pithy).

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.  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 to exist, the universals would not even have found the mental existence.  Therefore, 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.

The aggregate (the entirety) of anything is essentially the sum of its parts and nothing more. Aggregates of finite beings can be said to not exist. For the statement "something must exist" to be true, something other than finite things or aggregates must exist.

Looks ok.

"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."

The statement "something exists" must always be true. Something must exist that cannot cease to exist.

Eh, I prefer saying it like this: the proposition will always be true, and thus that something (or that reality) mentioned in the proposition will always exist.

OP says that this argument, the POTV, and a few attribute tracings prove the existence of something 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."

Hell yeah.

He then beckons readers to focus and not spew crap.

And yet still, unfortunately, most of 'em ended up neglecting the former and doing precisely the latter. But it was worth a shot.

[TheMuslim]

As is evident from many of the comments, few have bothered to actually read the post before commenting. I have summarized it below for anyone who is unwilling to wade through its jargon.

A brief summary of the POTV as presented by TheMuslim:-
- Something is real.
- It is impossible for nothing to be real (in the event that this statement is denied, there is something that denies it and is real). If this statement can never be denied, it will always be true.
- For this statement to be always true, something must always exist.
- Finite, conditional beings exist within boundaries, beyond which they are nonexistent.
- As such, something that is infinite, or not conditional, must exist.

TheMuslim believes that this demonstrates the existence of a deity.

As I have elaborated in my previous post, I find your summaries a bit inaccurate (and/or misleading).

Here, I myself made a concise summary of the DOTV (yes, I’m taking the risk of slightly losing the original deliverance of meaning):


- Primary proposition: “There is a reality” (i.e. at least something exists).
- The primary proposition must be and will always be true unconditionally.
You can’t deny this in any condition because conditions are themselves realities – and thus attest to the primary proposition’s truth. In other words, if someone claims “there is no reality” (i.e. "nothing is real"), that claim 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).
- Finite beings exist only within certain conditions, outside of which they don't exist. For the primary proposition to always be true unconditionally (which we have shown to be the case), something other than finite beings must exist.
Propositions that narrate the reality of finite beings are conditional (i.e. it is only within certain boundaries that such propositions are true, beyond which they are false - because finite entities can only exist within certain boundaries). The proposition for this reality, however, is unconditional. Hence finite and conditional beings cannot be the extension (misdāq) of the reality in our primary proposition.
- Since the primary proposition is and must always be unconditionally true, and its extension cannot be a finite reality, its extension can only be an infinite and eternally necessary reality.

So there you go. That's the DOTV in a very simplified form.

One may question why we might call such an infinite and eternally necessary reality a "god" or "deity". As an attempt to answer this question, Ibn Sina made some brilliant attribute tracings that allow us to better understand this reality and also allow us to see why many of us may refer to this reality as a god or deity. I looked at some of his tracings in chapter 9 of the book Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays, edited by Peter Anderson. The DOTV, coupled with many of the tracings that I found sound, proves the existence of an existent that is necessary, eternal, one-and-only, immaterial, omnipresent, self-subsisting, independent, primary, absolute/infinite, unrestricted, unique, formless, ineffable, uncaused, without 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 can also add in consciousness and knowledge if you find my personal attribute tracing for consciousness and/or knowledge sound (the one I mentioned in my original post).

[MrSantaClaus]

I may have issues with your summarization. How do you define reality?