Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God

[robvalue]

Also, how significant can this thing really be if you have to try this hard just to get us to notice it?

[quip]

"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.

This smacks of presuppositionalism. That is...it begs it's own validity, which in turn is a "negation of reality" thus remains valid....ad nauseam.

[IATIA]

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), ...

For sake of argument, I will except this for now.  HOWEVER ---

... i.e. a Necessary Existent(s).

That does not follow.  You jumped tracks.  (and you better watch it, there is a crazy lady with a scalpel driving backwards on that one)  Why does a reality require an "Existent"?  An "Existent" can have (may require) a reality, but it does not follow that a reality has or even needs an "Existent".

[quip]

... i.e. a Necessary Existent(s).

That does not follow.  You jumped tracks.  (and you better watch it, there is a crazy lady with a scalpel driving backwards on that one)  Why does a reality require an "Existent"?  An "Existent" can have (may require) a reality, but it does not follow that a reality has or even needs an "Existent".

Can you definitively assert that reality exists independent from an extant entity's experience of it?

[Angrboda]

This all seems little more than word games.

[WinterHold]

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.

Why why whhyyy do Shia write a lot ?? guys; you and mystic; I swear I got a headache from your posts, the member "mystic" would explain this headache as demon possession, but whatever..

Writing a lot means that you have nothing; it means you are practicing word gymnastics to cover a certain inferiority in your method and logic !

[Neo-Scholastic]

This is what I summarize it to be but I maybe wrong:


Existence is necessary because there is no possibility of non-existence (argues why - briefly, even trying to deny it you affirm it (argues why))
We and things in universe exists, but aren't necessary existence, since it's possible individually each thing won't exist, while that would negate the premise then non-existence is impossible.
The only existence that can be necessary is absolute existence, in the sense it unites all existing qualities of life and excels all possible levels of it. This specially since all existing beings and possibilities of existence are possible through it.  Negating the possibilities are illogical while denying the necessary existence by which things become possible is also illogical.

Very similar to Aquinas's 3rd way...the Necessary Being. (But less elegant IMO)

[ReptilianPeon]

[Pat Mustard]

MNP people like Craig use Kalam instead of Aquinas because they know that Aquinas has been well dismissed at this stage. While Kalam and the first three of the Quinque Viae are the exact same argument (not suprising as they both plagirise the same Aristotlean argument), but Kalam is slightly older and less well known (well at the time Craigh took it up) so it seemed more advantageous to use it.

I wonder what the fundie creatard groupies would think if they ever found out their beloved Craig was using a "proof" for allah? Could get interesting.

[Neo-Scholastic]

... 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.

Maybe it doesn't validate a specific form of Divinity, it clearly moves us in that direction since acknowledgment of a Necessary Being leads to further questions about the nature of that Being. To me the way some atheists tenaciously deny the obvious truth of the argument demonstrates that their resistance is irrational. That could be due to fear of the implications, willful ignorance, stubbornness, some of the above or simply something else. Whatever it is, their reason for rejecting the argument is basically emotional.