Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God

[IATIA]

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).

Then, can god make a rock so heavy that it cannot move it.  Same train.

[ReptilianPeon]

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

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

At least the OP is not Wahaabi-Salafi. All they can do is robotically utter Tasbih all day long. At least the OP us trying to make sense. Even though the fact that Shias cannot agree on how man Imams there are before Mahdi is very damaging to them? Is it five, seven or twelve? Who knows?

[robvalue]

Has the OP given any reason yet why we should care about any of this?

Sometimes I get the answer, "Don't you find it interesting? Don't you want to learn more about it, if it's real?" Sure, it would be interesting if it was real. But I wouldn't be able to learn about it. It's always defined to be utterly beyond the reach of any method of study. It has to remain in that group of things that are indistinguishable from nothing, to stop someone accidentally making a falsifiable claim about it.

[TheMuslim]

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).

Then, can god make a rock so heavy that it cannot move it.  Same train.

I usually don't reply to stuff that doesn't hold logical relevance to the soundness of the demonstration I'm inquiring critique for, but I'll reply to this because this is a question I've heard before multiple times and found the Imams to have given interesting answers - from the same book I found the DOTV in.

A Commentary on Theistic Arguments, pages 204-205: "In his al-Tawhīd, al-Shaykh al-Sadūq, blessings be with him, narrates that two different individuals asked Imam Ja‛far al-Sādiq, peace be with him, whether God has the power to place the earth in an egg-sized tiny container in a way that neither the earth loses its size nor the container expands. The Imam, peace be with him, gives one of them a rhetorical (jadalī) answer and the other a demonstrative one. In response to the first inquisitor, the Imam, peace be with him, says “Open your eyes, do not you see the expansive heavens and the earth? How God has placed something which is bigger than the earth in your eyes which are smaller than an egg.” This answer was sufficient to satisfy the inquisitor. In his answer to the second individual, while stressing that by His infinite power, God can do everything, the Imam says “What you have asked is impossible and nothing (lā shai’).” That is, although God is powerful to do everything, however, you have not asked about a “thing”; therefore, what you have inquired about is not an exception to the Divine omnipotence; rather, it is excluded from the domain of power. This response of the holy Imam, peace be with him, comprises a profound philosophical analysis about impossible phenomena that an impossible thing has a notion the extension (misdāq) of which is “nothing"."

[The Grand Nudger]

[quote=In response to the first inquisitor, the Imam, peace be with him, says “Open your eyes, do not you see the expansive heavens and the earth? How God has placed something which is bigger than the earth in your eyes which are smaller than an egg.” This answer was sufficient to satisfy the inquisitor.

The imam equivocated and the questioner was satisfied?  

In his answer to the second individual, while stressing that by His infinite power, God can do everything, the Imam says “What you have asked is impossible and nothing (lā shai’).” That is, although God is powerful to do everything, however, you have not asked about a “thing”; therefore, what you have inquired about is not an exception to the Divine omnipotence; rather, it is excluded from the domain of power. This response of the holy Imam, peace be with him, comprises a profound philosophical analysis about impossible phenomena that an impossible thing has a notion the extension (misdāq) of which is “nothing"."

-and after equivocating, pretended that his god was somehow limited by logical impositions which he -cannot- remain faithful to?

Sounds to me like the Imam was having some fun at the expense of two dim questioners.

[LostLocke]

The Imam, peace be with him, gives one of them a rhetorical (jadalī) answer and the other a demonstrative one. In response to the first inquisitor, the Imam, peace be with him, says “Open your eyes, do not you see the expansive heavens and the earth? How God has placed something which is bigger than the earth in your eyes which are smaller than an egg.” This answer was sufficient to satisfy the inquisitor

If that's all it took to satisfy the inquisitor, then that inquisitor has very, very, very low standards.
Seeing the entire expanse of the heavens and the earth is not even remotely the same as actually having the entire expanse of the heavens and earth inside our eyes.
So that was a great non-answer on the Imam's part.

In his answer to the second individual, while stressing that by His infinite power, God can do everything, the Imam says “What you have asked is impossible and nothing (lā shai’).” That is, although God is powerful to do everything, however, you have not asked about a “thing”...

If the earth inside an eggshell is not a "thing", then the entire expanse of heaven and earth in our eyes is not a "thing" either. Which now also makes the Imam two faced for using it as an example in the first question.
And, PS... yes, the earth inside an eggshell is a "thing".

[TheMuslim]

[quote=In response to the first inquisitor, the Imam, peace be with him, says “Open your eyes, do not you see the expansive heavens and the earth? How God has placed something which is bigger than the earth in your eyes which are smaller than an egg.” This answer was sufficient to satisfy the inquisitor.

The imam equivocated and the questioner was satisfied?  

In his answer to the second individual, while stressing that by His infinite power, God can do everything, the Imam says “What you have asked is impossible and nothing (lā shai’).” That is, although God is powerful to do everything, however, you have not asked about a “thing”; therefore, what you have inquired about is not an exception to the Divine omnipotence; rather, it is excluded from the domain of power. This response of the holy Imam, peace be with him, comprises a profound philosophical analysis about impossible phenomena that an impossible thing has a notion the extension (misdāq) of which is “nothing"."

-and after equivocating, pretended that his god was somehow limited by logical impositions which he -cannot- remain faithful to?

Sounds to me like the Imam was having some fun at the expense of two dim questioners.

If that's all it took to satisfy the inquisitor, then that inquisitor has very, very, very low standards.
Seeing the entire expanse of the heavens and the earth is not even remotely the same as actually having the entire expanse of the heavens and earth inside our eyes.
So that was a great non-answer on the Imam's part.

The context of the passage was about the different ways the Imams responded to different questioners according to the ability of the questioners' intellects. Sometimes they gave rhetorical responses, sometimes logical and/or philosophical ones - they type they gave depended on the inquisitor. This is the 7th century we're talking about here, and the Imams were meant to be guides for everyone - and that requires adjusting to the person you're speaking to. The Prophet and the Imams were heedful of their audience's capacity of comprehension, as the hadith says: "We the congregation of apostles converse to people according to the capacity of their intellects" (this hadith is, in fact, mentioned on the same page as those responses). They were leaders of a religion and knew how to deal with people in order to preach it.

[The Grand Nudger]

The context is that holy-men gave differing, and ignorant answers to differing, and ignorant people, to accommodate their ignorance and difference?  That explains -alot-.

[WinterHold]

[pocaracas]