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]

---

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 !

---

I don't think I've seen anything in the argument (Proof of the Veracious) itself that makes it so a non-Shia can't use it. So maybe you could refine it? Refine it and trim the excess. Ibn Sina was very intelligent person - and just because he was (probably) Shia doesn't mean he has to be dismissed. We are assured that this argument has links to the Quran in the first post in this topic, if you look at it closely (more on that later).

Every religious person knows Kalam and that is from Sunni. I suppose one could argue that an Iyaht Quran 52:35 might be where people go the idea from Kalam from. But I always find it funny when Kuffar use the argument. The argument is so vague that there is nothing in it that points to any particular deity.

But anyway, Atlas, you said there are enough proofs in just the Quran. So I don't know why I don't see the first post in this topic, the one laying out the Proof of the Veracious claim, any Quran Iyaht. TheMuslim tells us in the first post of this topic that Ibn Sina says that he derived the Proof of the Veracious from the Quran and Hadiths.

Maybe the key is the Shia Hadith. But apparently there is support for the argument in the Quran. But I don't why I should take literature that says graves the Sahabah will be dug up by an Imam or whatever (which is rather "eh?") seriously, but maybe TheMuslim will convince me otherwise. I mean, why waste your time on grudges. Does the Quran really not say anywhere to forgive people? If Allah is really on the side of the Imams there is no need to dig up graves because those (evil) people will be suffering in the hellfire anyway, right? Is the Hellfire not punishment enough?

It seems excessive to dig up the graves. You appear on the Earth and one of the first things that you do is dig up the graves of your enemies? That's just silly. And it's certainly not going to win people over.

I am sure that you would also like to know of these Quran Iyaht. If Proof of the Veracious is in the Quran, as has been claimed by Ibn Sina (and, therefore, TheMuslim), we would expect to find the Iyaht. So perhaps TheMuslim can elaborate on that?

How many different species will in the ensuing word salad, I wonder, Atlas? Yes, one can take words to do gymnastics, but they can also make a fine salad. And then you add a bit of Shia seasoning on the top. I don't know if it will make nice salad. But we'll see.

My post was somewhat long so I hope I have avoided a word entreé. Word salads can be a fun thing to delve into. Often contradicting flavours are added. So I hope we can exmine these Quran Iyaht.

[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.