This summary provides an overview of the document in 3 sentences:
Al-Ghazali argued against the philosophers' position that the world is eternally co-existent with God by presenting a kalam cosmological argument - that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist and therefore has a cause. The document discusses Al-Ghazali's refutation of two arguments for the eternity of the world put forth by the philosophers: 1) that if the world did not co-exist eternally it would remain in potentiality, and 2) that if an eternal creator brought the temporal world into being, the creator would need a cause.
The document summarizes Ibn Sina's arguments for the existence of God from his major works. It outlines his argument that a set of only contingent existences requires a necessary existent to explain it. Ibn Sina reasons that contingent things cannot form an infinite regress and must ultimately trace back to a necessary being. The document analyzes key passages from Ibn Sina and discusses how he categorizes necessary and contingent existence, laying the groundwork for his proof of God's existence.
This document discusses the views of various philosophers and religious figures on humor from ancient Greece to modern times. It provides a chronological sampling of statements on humor from Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece to modern thinkers like Freud and Kierkegaard. It also explores how different religious traditions like Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism have incorporated or viewed humor. Examples of religious humor in sermons, church bulletins and politics are presented to show how humor can be used to identify with religious groups.
This document provides an overview and outline of topics covered in Chapter 4 of the textbook "Philosophy and God". The chapter discusses the significance of religion and examines arguments for and against the existence of God. It introduces the ontological, cosmological, and design arguments for God's existence, addressing objections and responses to each. Key concepts covered include defining religion, dimensions of religion, and distinguishing between religious belief and experience. The significance of the Big Bang theory in relation to cosmological arguments is also debated.
This document summarizes and introduces a revised edition of the book "A Garden of Pomegranates" which outlines the Qabalah, an ancient system of Jewish mysticism. The summary discusses how the Qabalah can provide a framework to understand both the universe and oneself. It also touches on how the Qabalah relates to magic and how its symbolism can help correlate different concepts. The introduction acknowledges some direct plagiarisms from other authors in the original book and provides context for the revisions.
This document provides an overview of the course "Philosophy of Religion" which examines arguments for and against the existence of God from both theistic and atheistic perspectives. It discusses elements of worldview evaluation, examines various theistic arguments including cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments. It also examines atheistic arguments such as the problem of evil. Alternative worldviews discussed include Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses. The document concludes by outlining various cases for the resurrection of Jesus and arguments that have been made against the validity of the resurrection.
Christian apologetics involves defending Christianity through reasoned arguments and evidence. There are various methodologies like classical, evidential, presuppositional, and reformed epistemology approaches. Classical apologetics uses arguments like the cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments to establish God and then Christianity. Evidential focuses on the resurrection evidence. Presuppositional says one must accept God to understand the world. Reformed epistemology says belief in God is properly basic. Defenders use minimal facts about Jesus' death, empty tomb, and appearances to argue for his resurrection.
The book as seance frederic myers and the london sprcienciaspsiquicas
This document summarizes Frederic Myers' theory that books can act as a form of séance, allowing communication between the living and the dead. Myers believed that thoughts and memories are recorded in a "cosmic photograph" and can be accessed by sensitive individuals. For Myers, writing was a way to make contact with future readers and guide the evolution of human consciousness after death. The document discusses how Myers' ideas were a product of his time when science was challenging traditional religion, and analyzes his goal of establishing a "science of religion" based on empirical evidence rather than dogma.
The document summarizes Ibn Sina's arguments for the existence of God from his major works. It outlines his argument that a set of only contingent existences requires a necessary existent to explain it. Ibn Sina reasons that contingent things cannot form an infinite regress and must ultimately trace back to a necessary being. The document analyzes key passages from Ibn Sina and discusses how he categorizes necessary and contingent existence, laying the groundwork for his proof of God's existence.
This document discusses the views of various philosophers and religious figures on humor from ancient Greece to modern times. It provides a chronological sampling of statements on humor from Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece to modern thinkers like Freud and Kierkegaard. It also explores how different religious traditions like Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism have incorporated or viewed humor. Examples of religious humor in sermons, church bulletins and politics are presented to show how humor can be used to identify with religious groups.
This document provides an overview and outline of topics covered in Chapter 4 of the textbook "Philosophy and God". The chapter discusses the significance of religion and examines arguments for and against the existence of God. It introduces the ontological, cosmological, and design arguments for God's existence, addressing objections and responses to each. Key concepts covered include defining religion, dimensions of religion, and distinguishing between religious belief and experience. The significance of the Big Bang theory in relation to cosmological arguments is also debated.
This document summarizes and introduces a revised edition of the book "A Garden of Pomegranates" which outlines the Qabalah, an ancient system of Jewish mysticism. The summary discusses how the Qabalah can provide a framework to understand both the universe and oneself. It also touches on how the Qabalah relates to magic and how its symbolism can help correlate different concepts. The introduction acknowledges some direct plagiarisms from other authors in the original book and provides context for the revisions.
This document provides an overview of the course "Philosophy of Religion" which examines arguments for and against the existence of God from both theistic and atheistic perspectives. It discusses elements of worldview evaluation, examines various theistic arguments including cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments. It also examines atheistic arguments such as the problem of evil. Alternative worldviews discussed include Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses. The document concludes by outlining various cases for the resurrection of Jesus and arguments that have been made against the validity of the resurrection.
Christian apologetics involves defending Christianity through reasoned arguments and evidence. There are various methodologies like classical, evidential, presuppositional, and reformed epistemology approaches. Classical apologetics uses arguments like the cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments to establish God and then Christianity. Evidential focuses on the resurrection evidence. Presuppositional says one must accept God to understand the world. Reformed epistemology says belief in God is properly basic. Defenders use minimal facts about Jesus' death, empty tomb, and appearances to argue for his resurrection.
The book as seance frederic myers and the london sprcienciaspsiquicas
This document summarizes Frederic Myers' theory that books can act as a form of séance, allowing communication between the living and the dead. Myers believed that thoughts and memories are recorded in a "cosmic photograph" and can be accessed by sensitive individuals. For Myers, writing was a way to make contact with future readers and guide the evolution of human consciousness after death. The document discusses how Myers' ideas were a product of his time when science was challenging traditional religion, and analyzes his goal of establishing a "science of religion" based on empirical evidence rather than dogma.
1) Atheism has a long history dating back to ancient civilizations like Greece and India. Major developments include Darwin's theory of evolution which supported a naturalistic view of life's origins.
2) The two main bases of modern atheism are Darwinism and materialism - the views that life evolved through natural selection and that matter is the only substance in reality with no supernatural.
3) Arguments for the existence of God include those based on Islamic scripture and reasoning about design, complexity, and the need for a first cause or creator of contingent beings and laws of nature. Refutations of atheist positions also exist.
This document discusses metamorphosis in early Christian imagination, specifically focusing on Jesus appearing in the form of an eagle. It provides several examples from early Christian texts where Jesus transforms into an eagle, sitting in a tree or appearing above a cross. The author argues that these ideas were influenced by Homeric literature, where gods like Apollo and Athena sometimes took the form of birds. Looking at evolutionary psychology, the author suggests that concepts of death and metamorphosis were appealing to early Christian minds. Overall, the document examines how the motif of Jesus transforming into an eagle emerged and what purposes it served in early Christian thought.
This document summarizes several philosophical arguments for the existence of God put forth by prominent thinkers throughout history. It discusses St. Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument, Thomas Aquinas' five ways, William Paley's teleological argument, Cardinal Newman's argument from conscience, Blaise Pascal's wager, John Smith's argument from life's crucial junctures, and Rudolf Otto's argument from religious experience. It analyzes the different approaches and perspectives addressed by each argument and emphasizes the importance of building faith on a solid foundation of truly knowing God rather than blindly following what others say.
God exists because he created humans with an innate desire and need for him. While many try to fill this "God-shaped vacuum" with other things, only God can satisfy it. Evidence of intelligent design in nature points to a Creator. Scientific discoveries about the immense size and intricate laws of the universe also suggest it was created by an omnipotent God.
THE TRINITARIAN PARADIGM: The Double Helix, The Kundalini Serpent, The Breath...William John Meegan
The main thesis of this paper is about the Trinitarian Paradigm. This Trinitarian Paradigm has everything to do with Hebraic Alphabet and how it is you to write the mythoi of the Judaeo Christian Scriptures. Even the New Testament written is Greek is based upon this Trinitarian Paradigm. I have discovered that it is a Memory Technique as to how to write and read symbolism. Just as human learn to read books by studying their cultural alphabet the Trinitarian Paradigm is the method that was developed that allows initiates to go from iconoclastic (not symbolic) thought to iconographic (symbolic) thought.
This paper is a discussion about the five parables in the first twenty-one verses of the thirteenth chapter of Luke’s gospel that is analogous to the Trinitarian Paradigm and mixed with that discussion will be a conversation on the life of Moses corresponding to the Trinitarian Paradigm.
This paper will discuss briefly the Origin of the Hebraic Alphabet that I wrote about in another paper and this paper will discuss, the Lilly: fleur de lis that the Zohar discussed as being laid out in the first two verses of Genesis and a brief word on the Adam and Eve story will be discuss in context to this thesis; in addition, the first chapter of Genesis will be briefly discussed in relationship to the thirty-two (32) times the word Elohym is used to formulate the Kabbalistic Tree of Life via sacred geometry, which illustrates the rise of the Kundalini Serpent up that tree.
Christianity cannot be understood unless the dynamics of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit: i.e. Trinitarian Paradigm is understood. When I was a child back in the late 50s and early 60s being taught by priests and nuns I was continuously told that the Trinity cannot be understood; however, that is what the whole of the Old and New Testament is about.
This document provides a summary and analysis of Pierre Klossowski's book Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle. It makes the following key points:
1. Klossowski's book provides a unique and singular reading of Nietzsche that penetrates the depths of his thought in a way that is both convincing and disquieting.
2. The book interprets Nietzsche's philosophy through the lens of an "existentialism of self-dissolution" rather than focusing on cosmological aspects.
3. Klossowski's reading privileges Nietzsche's experience of the eternal return in Sils Maria in 1881 as providing access to intensities of experience beyond knowledge and communication. However
The document discusses scientific statements found in the Quran and how modern science has verified them. It provides examples of statements about the formation of the universe from a primary gaseous mass, the condensing and separation of this material to form galaxies and stars, and the simultaneous creation of the heavens and earth. The Quran avoided myths and errors found in other religious texts by describing creation in a way that is consistent with modern scientific explanations discovered centuries later. The level of scientific accuracy without modern instruments suggests the Quran was not authored by humans.
Plato and the Pre-Socratic philosophers attempted to explain reality through reason alone, without reference to myth or religion. They debated questions about the fundamental nature of reality and whether it is one or many. Plato believed in eternal "Forms" that were the perfect essence of things in the world, which were imperfect copies. Aristotle rejected Plato's theory of Forms and argued reality is composed of both matter and form, with accidents being non-essential features and essences being defining characteristics. This document provides an overview of the major philosophers from Thales to Aristotle and some of the key debates around the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics.
The document discusses a new product launch for a company. It outlines key details of the product, including its main features and benefits. It also provides the launch date and explains that the goal of the launch is to introduce customers to the new capabilities and generate interest in the new offering.
This document is a translation of Book 33 from Ihya' Ulum al-Din, a work by al-Ghazzali. The translated book is titled "Book of Fear and Hope" and was translated by William McKane. It was published by E. J. Brill in Leiden, Netherlands in 1965.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
This document provides a brief biography of Hujjat al-Islam Mawlana Muhammad Qasim al-Nanautwi, an influential Islamic scholar and founder of Dar al-Ulum Deoband. It describes his early education in Nanauta and Delhi, where he studied under renowned scholars. He gained recognition for his intellectual abilities and pious character from a young age. The biography highlights his studies under Shah Abd al-Ghani in Hadith and his role in establishing Dar al-Ulum Deoband and other madrasas to spread Islamic education. It also notes his efforts in reform movements and participation in the fight for Indian independence.
This document discusses the harms and benefits of modern sport from an Islamic perspective. It examines harms of participation in sport such as the use of performance-enhancing drugs, which is forbidden in Islam due to the dishonesty, health risks, and intoxicating effects of many drugs. It also discusses the shameful and obscene dress codes required in some sports. While sport provides some physical and social benefits, the document argues that the modern sporting world has become overly commercialized and corrupt, and straying far from the original purposes of sport in ancient times. It provides an Islamic analysis of major sports like the Olympics, soccer, and cricket, and suggests Muslims should avoid direct participation, viewing, or obsession with modern professional sports
1) Atheism has a long history dating back to ancient civilizations like Greece and India. Major developments include Darwin's theory of evolution which supported a naturalistic view of life's origins.
2) The two main bases of modern atheism are Darwinism and materialism - the views that life evolved through natural selection and that matter is the only substance in reality with no supernatural.
3) Arguments for the existence of God include those based on Islamic scripture and reasoning about design, complexity, and the need for a first cause or creator of contingent beings and laws of nature. Refutations of atheist positions also exist.
This document discusses metamorphosis in early Christian imagination, specifically focusing on Jesus appearing in the form of an eagle. It provides several examples from early Christian texts where Jesus transforms into an eagle, sitting in a tree or appearing above a cross. The author argues that these ideas were influenced by Homeric literature, where gods like Apollo and Athena sometimes took the form of birds. Looking at evolutionary psychology, the author suggests that concepts of death and metamorphosis were appealing to early Christian minds. Overall, the document examines how the motif of Jesus transforming into an eagle emerged and what purposes it served in early Christian thought.
This document summarizes several philosophical arguments for the existence of God put forth by prominent thinkers throughout history. It discusses St. Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument, Thomas Aquinas' five ways, William Paley's teleological argument, Cardinal Newman's argument from conscience, Blaise Pascal's wager, John Smith's argument from life's crucial junctures, and Rudolf Otto's argument from religious experience. It analyzes the different approaches and perspectives addressed by each argument and emphasizes the importance of building faith on a solid foundation of truly knowing God rather than blindly following what others say.
God exists because he created humans with an innate desire and need for him. While many try to fill this "God-shaped vacuum" with other things, only God can satisfy it. Evidence of intelligent design in nature points to a Creator. Scientific discoveries about the immense size and intricate laws of the universe also suggest it was created by an omnipotent God.
THE TRINITARIAN PARADIGM: The Double Helix, The Kundalini Serpent, The Breath...William John Meegan
The main thesis of this paper is about the Trinitarian Paradigm. This Trinitarian Paradigm has everything to do with Hebraic Alphabet and how it is you to write the mythoi of the Judaeo Christian Scriptures. Even the New Testament written is Greek is based upon this Trinitarian Paradigm. I have discovered that it is a Memory Technique as to how to write and read symbolism. Just as human learn to read books by studying their cultural alphabet the Trinitarian Paradigm is the method that was developed that allows initiates to go from iconoclastic (not symbolic) thought to iconographic (symbolic) thought.
This paper is a discussion about the five parables in the first twenty-one verses of the thirteenth chapter of Luke’s gospel that is analogous to the Trinitarian Paradigm and mixed with that discussion will be a conversation on the life of Moses corresponding to the Trinitarian Paradigm.
This paper will discuss briefly the Origin of the Hebraic Alphabet that I wrote about in another paper and this paper will discuss, the Lilly: fleur de lis that the Zohar discussed as being laid out in the first two verses of Genesis and a brief word on the Adam and Eve story will be discuss in context to this thesis; in addition, the first chapter of Genesis will be briefly discussed in relationship to the thirty-two (32) times the word Elohym is used to formulate the Kabbalistic Tree of Life via sacred geometry, which illustrates the rise of the Kundalini Serpent up that tree.
Christianity cannot be understood unless the dynamics of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit: i.e. Trinitarian Paradigm is understood. When I was a child back in the late 50s and early 60s being taught by priests and nuns I was continuously told that the Trinity cannot be understood; however, that is what the whole of the Old and New Testament is about.
This document provides a summary and analysis of Pierre Klossowski's book Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle. It makes the following key points:
1. Klossowski's book provides a unique and singular reading of Nietzsche that penetrates the depths of his thought in a way that is both convincing and disquieting.
2. The book interprets Nietzsche's philosophy through the lens of an "existentialism of self-dissolution" rather than focusing on cosmological aspects.
3. Klossowski's reading privileges Nietzsche's experience of the eternal return in Sils Maria in 1881 as providing access to intensities of experience beyond knowledge and communication. However
The document discusses scientific statements found in the Quran and how modern science has verified them. It provides examples of statements about the formation of the universe from a primary gaseous mass, the condensing and separation of this material to form galaxies and stars, and the simultaneous creation of the heavens and earth. The Quran avoided myths and errors found in other religious texts by describing creation in a way that is consistent with modern scientific explanations discovered centuries later. The level of scientific accuracy without modern instruments suggests the Quran was not authored by humans.
Plato and the Pre-Socratic philosophers attempted to explain reality through reason alone, without reference to myth or religion. They debated questions about the fundamental nature of reality and whether it is one or many. Plato believed in eternal "Forms" that were the perfect essence of things in the world, which were imperfect copies. Aristotle rejected Plato's theory of Forms and argued reality is composed of both matter and form, with accidents being non-essential features and essences being defining characteristics. This document provides an overview of the major philosophers from Thales to Aristotle and some of the key debates around the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics.
The document discusses a new product launch for a company. It outlines key details of the product, including its main features and benefits. It also provides the launch date and explains that the goal of the launch is to introduce customers to the new capabilities and generate interest in the new offering.
This document is a translation of Book 33 from Ihya' Ulum al-Din, a work by al-Ghazzali. The translated book is titled "Book of Fear and Hope" and was translated by William McKane. It was published by E. J. Brill in Leiden, Netherlands in 1965.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
This document provides a brief biography of Hujjat al-Islam Mawlana Muhammad Qasim al-Nanautwi, an influential Islamic scholar and founder of Dar al-Ulum Deoband. It describes his early education in Nanauta and Delhi, where he studied under renowned scholars. He gained recognition for his intellectual abilities and pious character from a young age. The biography highlights his studies under Shah Abd al-Ghani in Hadith and his role in establishing Dar al-Ulum Deoband and other madrasas to spread Islamic education. It also notes his efforts in reform movements and participation in the fight for Indian independence.
This document discusses the harms and benefits of modern sport from an Islamic perspective. It examines harms of participation in sport such as the use of performance-enhancing drugs, which is forbidden in Islam due to the dishonesty, health risks, and intoxicating effects of many drugs. It also discusses the shameful and obscene dress codes required in some sports. While sport provides some physical and social benefits, the document argues that the modern sporting world has become overly commercialized and corrupt, and straying far from the original purposes of sport in ancient times. It provides an Islamic analysis of major sports like the Olympics, soccer, and cricket, and suggests Muslims should avoid direct participation, viewing, or obsession with modern professional sports
This document discusses the differences between Islamic orthodoxy and Sufism in their visions of being a Muslim. It presents a table contrasting the views of orthodoxy and Sufism on various religious concepts and practices. The orthodox view focuses on outward observance of religious laws and rituals, while Sufism emphasizes inward spirituality, love for God, and mystical practices like music, dance, and ecstatic worship. The document also provides detailed explanations of key Sufi concepts and practices like hadra circles and defines technical terms used in Sufism. Overall, it analyzes the historical tensions but also complementarity between Islamic orthodoxy and the mystical tradition of Sufism.
This document provides information on various sunnah practices related to daily activities and acts of worship in Islam. It discusses sunnah practices upon awakening, entering and leaving the home and mosque, performing wudu and salah, eating, drinking, visiting the sick, travel, marriage and more. The practices are described in detail with references to hadith sources. The document is presented as a reference guide to understanding and following the sunnah in different aspects of Muslim life.
This document provides an abstract and keywords for a paper on the Kalām Jadīd (new dialectics) intellectual movement initiated by al-Ghazālī. The summary is:
1) The Kalām Jadīd movement succeeded in establishing philosophical and natural sciences firmly within Islamic theological and epistemological frameworks.
2) This historical success provides lessons for modern Muslim scholars to formulate new approaches ("Kalām al-ʿAṣr") to engage creatively with contemporary secular sciences while maintaining tradition.
3) The document examines how rational inquiry has always been an important part of the Islamic intellectual tradition, from the Qur'an itself through various theological and
This document summarizes the emergence and history of materialism from ancient to modern times. It discusses how materialism first developed among ancient Greek philosophers like Democritus, who believed that all matter was composed of tiny indivisible atoms. It also discusses the Indian philosopher Carvaka and his teachings, as well as how materialism continued to develop among modern philosophers like Fuerbach and Darwin who rejected the existence of the soul, God, or the supernatural. The document aims to explain the essence of materialism and analyze how Islam views this concept based on its teachings about the unseen world like God, angels, and the afterlife.
This summary provides an overview of the key points from the document in 3 sentences:
This document discusses a debate between two Islamic philosophers, Al-Ghazali and Averroes. Al-Ghazali wrote "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" criticizing Aristotelian philosophy. Averroes responded with "The Incoherence of the Incoherence", defending Aristotelian philosophy by rejecting some of Avicenna's ideas and arguing that Al-Ghazali's objections do not apply to Aristotle properly understood. The document then provides context on these philosophers and examines passages from their works on topics like God's knowledge and the use of dialectic versus demonstration.
2
Age of Reason
Age of Reason
Natasha Pemberton
Columbia Southern University
Bodrogean, A. (2013). Enlightenment Ideas Reflected in the English Literature of the Time. The Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, 5(9), 64-65.
The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in the late 17th and 18th century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition (Oxford Dictionaries, 2013). Its purpose was to reform society using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange (Alan Charles Kors, 2003: 53). It opposed superstition and intolerance, with the Catholic Church as a favorite target. Some Enlightenment philosophers collaborated with enlightened despots, who were absolute rulers who tried out some of the new governmental ideas in practice. The ideas of the Enlightenment have had a long-term major impact on the culture, politics, and governments of the Western world.
Enlightenment - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/enlightenment.
The period spanning from 1685 to 1815 is recognized as being the “Age of Reason”. Prior to the age of reason there were an abundance of myths that people believed to be true. Myths like the world is flat was a wide spread myth, but not supported by scientific fact. This important phase in western civilization paved the way for great thinkers whose discoveries are even prevalent today.
Gleiser, M. (2014, July 16). What The World Needs Now Is A New Enlightenment [Audio
podcast].
In this conversation Gleiser summarizes in his opinion the purpose of the Age of Reason. His claim is that “the core message of the Enlightenment was the need to create a global civilization with shared moral values. This overarching intellectual framework was far removed from traditional religious precepts. In fact, the Enlightenment declared war on the excesses of religion and blind nationalism.” He goes on to add that the global society is in need of a revisit to the age of reason to become better citizens.
Janiak, A. (2006, October 13). Newton's Philosophy. Retrieved November 12, 2014.
There were many great philosophers during this time span, and most of them studied the others work. The entire Age of Reason is a collection of the minds, but at times these individuals disagreed. “Newton's answer to Leibniz's idea that vortices cause the planetary orbits is that gravity itself causes them, and nothing else.” This example shows that not everyone was on the same page during this time period.
Newton, I., Motte, A., In Cajori, F., & In Crawford, R. T. (1934). Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical principles of natural philosophy and his System of the world: Translated into English by Andrew Motte in 1729. Berkeley.
This document discusses the rediscovery of God in the age of science. It summarizes traditional arguments for God's existence like the ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, but notes they have lost persuasive power due to modern atheism. It then discusses how recent scientific discoveries like the Big Bang theory, anthropic principle showing the universe is finely-tuned for life, and search for a fundamental substance/force are rediscovering God and moving beyond atheism. The document argues these scientific findings point to an intelligent designer and creator, providing evidence for God's existence in the current scientific age.
This document discusses the rediscovery of God in the age of science. It summarizes traditional arguments for God's existence like the ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, but notes they have lost persuasive power due to modern atheism. It then discusses how recent scientific discoveries like the Big Bang theory, anthropic principle showing the universe is finely-tuned for life, and search for a fundamental substance/force are rediscovering God as the best explanation. The document argues science is moving beyond past atheism by providing evidence the universe was designed and created by God.
Uti index-papers-e-chapter5-religion-philosophy-and-scienceHIDEUMI SEKIGUCHI
This document examines the historical relationship between religion, philosophy, and science. It finds that throughout much of history:
1) Religion, philosophy, and science were closely intertwined, with each guiding and supporting the development of the others.
2) However, at some points certain religious or philosophical views hindered scientific progress by providing incorrect guidance.
3) Major scientific advances like those of Copernicus and Newton were not aimed at rejecting God, but rather understanding God's creation more accurately. Overall the document finds that religion and philosophy have generally played a positive role in guiding scientific development when providing the right direction, rather than being in conflict.
Uti index-papers-e-chapter5-religion-philosophy-and-scienceHideumi Sekiguchi
This document examines the historical relationship between religion, philosophy, and science. It finds that throughout much of history:
1) Religion and philosophy often guided and supported the development of science by providing worldviews and direction for scientific inquiry.
2) Conflicts between religion/philosophy and science were usually not about the existence of God, but rather struggles between old and new views of nature.
3) Science has progressed according to God's providence, with mathematical and scientific discoveries often later being applied in unexpected ways. Religion and philosophy have played an important role in cultural progress despite occasional conflicts with science.
Running Head A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGHSOLZHENITSYN’S LENS.docxSUBHI7
Running Head: A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGHSOLZHENITSYN’S LENS 1
A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGH SOLZHENITSYN’S LENS 7
A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGHSOLZHENITSYN’S LENS
Student name:
Institution:
A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGH SOLZHENITSYN’S LENS
Introduction
The Russian writer, Solzhenitsyn’s works have the obvious political and philosophical and moral undertones and connotations that accompany them much of which embody universal principles and evoke particular emotions and notions in the readers worldwide. Questions that regard such touchy topics as the meaning of human life, the far-reaching effects of the human will with the moral end always in view resonate in all the vast cornucopia of his published works. The Russian writer has fashioned out and meticulously carved out a line of thought extracted from his experience at the gulag inspiring an entire philosophy in the succeeding chain of his works. Across his work, there is the persistent discussion of values and the insistence of moral dignity as being a lot of every right-thinking man. This paper seeks to deal with the case of the historical figure of Ibn Sina or as he is known in the West by his Latinised name, Avicenna, against the backdrop of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance as seen through the lens of Solzhenitsyn’s philosophies.
Avicenna was one of the significant thinkers of the Islamic Golden Age, a polymath regarded as heavily influential by all counts and as one of the greatest leading thinkers of Persian extraction (Arberry, 1995). He was born circumstantially in the area surrounding Bukhara to a rich minefield of knowledge that was the result of the cumulative surge of Arabic appreciation of Greek scholarly writings that had been extensively translated into Arabic. Especially were the Greek philosophical texts readily available and by the time that Avicenna came around at least one generation of Arabic thinkers had had intercourse with this material and had built upon it variously. His was, therefore, a conspiracy of luck that placed on the stage just in time to drink from the gourd of this amassed wealth of truth. He quickly became some child prodigy absorbing all the knowledge that was at his disposal and started on the path of one who was to become the most renowned thinkers of all time and arguably the most famous thinker and philosopher of Muslim descent. He wrote widely in various fields ranging from Medicine, Theology, Psychology, Metaphysics and myriad other topics under the broad umbrella of philosophy. He is known that unlike all the philosophers and Arabic-Islamic theologians of his time he set out on a path that involved blending the philosophical thoughts of his time to form a unique merge that was to inform and influence the thinking culture and the framework of logical reasoning of the later generations especially of Muslim thinkers in a quantifiably great way. He is known to have written over 450 works, 250 of which survive to the present giving ...
PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL THEISM: FIVE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE...Dr Ian Ellis-Jones
The document summarizes and critiques five arguments for the existence of God put forth by Dr. William Lane Craig. It analyzes the first argument in particular, which is an argument about the origin of the universe. The document claims this argument commits several fallacies, including equivocating the meaning of "cause" and assuming the universe requires a causal explanation when in fact it may be part of a "closed system" with no need for an external cause. The document argues we have no experience of things truly beginning to exist from nothing, and that nothing in thermodynamics or our observations of causation supports the premise that whatever begins to exist needs a cause. Overall, the document thoroughly critiques this first argument and asserts all
The document discusses the relationship between Islam and science. It describes how science was an integral part of Islamic civilization from the 8th-16th centuries, as nature was seen as a sign from God. Muslim scientists like Ibn al-Haytham pioneered the scientific method. However, some argue traditional interpretations of Islam hindered further scientific advancement after the 15th century. Modern views among Muslims range from complete rejection to full acceptance of science. Interpreting scientific discoveries in the Quran remains controversial.
Islamic Philosophy, A Beginner's Guide.pdfccccccccdddddd
This chapter discusses the transmission of ancient Greek and Syriac philosophy and science to early Muslim philosophers following the Arab conquest of Alexandria in 641. It notes that Alexandria had become a meeting point of Greek and Oriental thought, giving rise to Neoplatonism. The first major philosophical text translated into Arabic was a paraphrase of Plotinus' Enneads, showing early Muslim interest in Neoplatonic thought. The chapter thus outlines the Hellenistic philosophical influences that shaped early Islamic philosophy through translations from Greek and Syriac.
The document discusses medieval and Renaissance philosophy. It provides questions about key philosophers and their ideas during these time periods. Some of the philosophers and concepts mentioned include Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, the geocentric model of the universe, the heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei's legend of uttering "And yet it moves" after recanting his theory.
A Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God.pdfNaomi Hansen
The document presents a cosmological argument for the existence of God based on the origin and nature of the universe:
1) It argues that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, and evidence suggests the universe began to exist a finite time ago (as supported by the Big Bang theory), therefore the universe must have had a cause.
2) This first cause of the universe (often called the "prime mover") would possess characteristics like eternality and power, similar to the God of Christianity.
3) Additional philosophical arguments are made to further establish that this prime mover is best explained as the God of Christianity, rather than other conceptions of a first cause.
This is the famous article of Card. Schönborn in the New York Times (July 7, 2005) on evolution.
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
This document summarizes a research paper that analyzes the historical evolution of the concept of determinism, with a focus on how modern science has developed a stronger idea of determinism. It begins by defining determinism and exploring its etymology. Determinism generally refers to the idea that all events, including human actions, are ultimately caused by preceding factors. The document then discusses different types of determinism, such as logical, theological, psychological, and physical determinism. It concludes that modern biology and genetics are constructing a more rigid framework of determinism than theology, by limiting the scope of chance and accident.
“This article will discuss the importance of knowing precisely between knowledge and science. Regarding this matter, the discussion would like to introduce two different points of view about Universe; from Scientists and Islamic perspective, because from which philosophers and Scientists formulate or synthesized their findings and results of their observations according to the preconscious Ideas. This is a preliminary effort to discuss on how the reality of sciences (haqa’iq al-‘ulum) and the knowledge (al-ma‘rifat) can help mankind knowing, establishing and acknowledging Allah and His present and existence. By knowing these, we could learn the privilege of Islamic fundamentals and requirements for sciences and knowledge. Hence, they should entails upon Muslims especially or Non-Muslim in general into the ultimate truth and justice to the Knowledge and Science & Technology. This is what is supposed to be in scientific and technological application in the worldly lives.”
There are many writings on the axiomic (i.e Qaḍiyyah musallamah) scientific causative agent(s), both from the East and the West. Muslims, as well as non-Muslims have also said a lot from their own perspectives. But none have been able to categorically specify whether or not the notion is totally rejected from the Qur’anic point of view, or it is totally approved. This paper thus discusses the notion, which sees the Qur’an as a model for anything and everything. The paper posits that Philosophy, Sciences, Technology, and Religion unanimously agree that all thing have got a cause, and hence all ‘causeds’ have a source. Philosophy is yet to substantively satisfy our quest, science is still struggling to allay our fears, technology is yet to convince our minds of its danger(s), and religion has not been fully allowed to freely proof its worth, where then lays the ‘causer’, the ‘medium’ and the ‘caused’? The paper accesses some philosophic notions of the causative agent(s) in the light of the Qur’anic interpretation of such. The major focus of the paper is on some Qur’anic verses and instances relevant to ‘cause’ and ‘effect’. The paper submits that ‘the notion of the causative agent(s) without exploring its religio-Divine sources is incomplete
Relationship between religion and scienceFawad Kiyani
The relationship between religion and science has been debated since antiquity. Perspectives vary widely between cultures and eras, from viewing the relationship as one of conflict to one of harmony or independence. Elements of the scientific method originated with ancient Christian, Islamic, and pagan scholars. Views on the relationship also differ between religious traditions, with some embracing science and others viewing it as incompatible or secondary to religion. Modern frameworks for understanding the relationship include seeing science and religion as addressing different aspects of human experience, in dialogue, or integrated in some way.
Elevation of Women's Status, Taken from a lecture that was given at McGill University in Canada on how Islam elevated the status of women. Part One: An explanation of the fundamental difference in world views between the West and Islam in regards to women, and a glimpse of Greek and Early Christian views on women.
Similar to A Text On Al Ghazali’s Tahafut al-Falasifa (20)
The Hope of Salvation - Jude 1:24-25 - MessageCole Hartman
Jude gives us hope at the end of a dark letter. In a dark world like today, we need the light of Christ to shine brighter and brighter. Jude shows us where to fix our focus so we can be filled with God's goodness and glory. Join us to explore this incredible passage.
The forces involved in this witchcraft spell will re-establish the loving bond between you and help to build a strong, loving relationship from which to start anew. Despite any previous hardships or problems, the spell work will re-establish the strong bonds of friendship and love upon which the marriage and relationship originated. Have faith, these stop divorce and stop separation spells are extremely powerful and will reconnect you and your partner in a strong and harmonious relationship.
My ritual will not only stop separation and divorce, but rebuild a strong bond between you and your partner that is based on truth, honesty, and unconditional love. For an even stronger effect, you may want to consider using the Eternal Love Bond spell to ensure your relationship and love will last through all tests of time. If you have not yet determined if your partner is considering separation or divorce, but are aware of rifts in the relationship, try the Love Spells to remove problems in a relationship or marriage. Keep in mind that all my love spells are 100% customized and that you'll only need 1 spell to address all problems/wishes.
Save your marriage from divorce & make your relationship stronger using anti divorce spells to make him or her fall back in love with you. End your marriage if you are no longer in love with your husband or wife. Permanently end your marriage using divorce spells that work fast. Protect your marriage from divorce using love spells to boost commitment, love & bind your hearts together for a stronger marriage that will last. Get your ex lover who has remarried using divorce spells to break up a couple & make your ex lost lover come back to you permanently.
Visit https://www.profbalaj.com/love-spells-loves-spells-that-work/
Call/WhatsApp +27836633417 for more info.
Why is this So? ~ Do Seek to KNOW (English & Chinese).pptxOH TEIK BIN
A PowerPoint Presentation based on the Dhamma teaching of Kamma-Vipaka (Intentional Actions-Ripening Effects).
A Presentation for developing morality, concentration and wisdom and to spur us to practice the Dhamma diligently.
The texts are in English and Chinese.
The Enchantment and Shadows_ Unveiling the Mysteries of Magic and Black Magic...Phoenix O
This manual will guide you through basic skills and tasks to help you get started with various aspects of Magic. Each section is designed to be easy to follow, with step-by-step instructions.
A Free eBook ~ Valuable LIFE Lessons to Learn ( 5 Sets of Presentations)...OH TEIK BIN
A free eBook comprising 5 sets of PowerPoint presentations of meaningful stories /Inspirational pieces that teach important Dhamma/Life lessons. For reflection and practice to develop the mind to grow in love, compassion and wisdom. The texts are in English and Chinese.
My other free eBooks can be obtained from the following Links:
https://www.slideshare.net/ohteikbin/presentations
https://www.slideshare.net/ohteikbin/documents
A375 Example Taste the taste of the Lord, the taste of the Lord The taste of...franktsao4
It seems that current missionary work requires spending a lot of money, preparing a lot of materials, and traveling to far away places, so that it feels like missionary work. But what was the result they brought back? It's just a lot of photos of activities, fun eating, drinking and some playing games. And then we have to do the same thing next year, never ending. The church once mentioned that a certain missionary would go to the field where she used to work before the end of his life. It seemed that if she had not gone, no one would be willing to go. The reason why these missionary work is so difficult is that no one obeys God’s words, and the Bible is not the main content during missionary work, because in the eyes of those who do not obey God’s words, the Bible is just words and cannot be connected with life, so Reading out God's words is boring because it doesn't have any life experience, so it cannot be connected with human life. I will give a few examples in the hope that this situation can be changed. A375
Kala jadu (black magic) expert,Black magic specialist in Dubai vashikaran spe...
A Text On Al Ghazali’s Tahafut al-Falasifa
1. A Text On Al Ghazali’s Tahafut al-Falasifa
Al-Ghazali’s Argument for the Eternity of the World
(Discussion One, Proofs 1 and 2a)
and the Problem of Divine Immutability and Timelessness
By Uzma Jones
Introduction
In the history of ideas, there is no question that the figure of al-Ghazali stands out
as one of the greatest thinkers of the West. Touted as the greatest Sunni theologian of all
time, his polemic against the Neoplatonic philosophers, chiefly Ibn Sina, dealt a deadly
blow to philosophy in the Islamic world.1 Born in 1058 CE in Tus, a city in modern day
Iran, al-Ghazali began his studies in jurisprudence, moving on to study theology under
the great theologian al-Juwayni. Al-Ghazali was fortunate enough to secure a teaching
position in the Nizamiya College of Baghdad, one of a number of seminaries established
by Nizam al-Mulk, the vizier for the Saljuk sultan, for the defense of Sunni theology
against the Isma‘ili Fatimid caliphate in Egypt. Al-Ghazali soon became a popular
teacher and renowned defender of Ash‘arite Sunni theology.2 After five years of teaching
in Baghdad, al-Ghazali became disillusioned with his profession and entered a period of
wandering, monastic-like travels. His disillusionment was founded, no doubt, in an
intellectual and spiritual crisis of skepticism that led him to a study of philosophy, and
1 Richard C. Martin, Mark R. Woodman, with Dwi S. Atmaja, Defenders of Reason in Islam: Mu‘tazilism
from Medieval School to Modern Symbol (Oxford: Oneworld, 1997) 1, 35.
2 For a fuller biography on al-Ghazali, see Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1983) 217-219; and W. Montgomery Watt, Muslim Intellectual: A Study of Al-
Ghazali (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963). Also see al-Ghazali’s biography, Deliverance
from Error, Richard Joseph McCarthy, S.J. (ed.) (Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 1980).
2. then into the mystical practice of sufism.3 Al-Ghazali’s prominence as a legalist,
theologian, apologist, and then mystic, cast him into the role of religious reformer, the
Muslim parallel of Augustine and Aquinas in Christendom. After his travels, al-Ghazali
eventually returned to teaching at the Nizamiya College in Nishapur, only to die five
years later in 1111 CE.
Written after al-Ghazali’s period of private philosophical study, and finished in
January 1094 CE, the Tahafut al-Falasifa had the aim of “pursuing the critique of reason
which underlay his bout of skepticism, and was trying to show that reason is not self-sufficient
in the field of metaphysics and is unable out of itself to produce a complete
world-view.”4 Even though, as Montgomery Watt explains, al-Ghazali personally held
certain doctrines that he refuted in the Tahafut.5 Al-Ghazali wanted to show that reason
itself “cannot prove that the world has a creator, that two gods are impossible, that God is
not a body, that He knows both others and Himself, and that the soul is a self-subsistent
entity.”6
Al-Ghazali, in a form reminiscent of Plato and Justin Martyr’s dialogues, created
dialogue partners with a group called “the philosophers.” Whether this representation of
the Islamic philosophers with whom he was in dialogue with is true or not, is a subject for
another essay. This essay will examine al-Ghazali’s argument for the temporal finiteness
of the universe, as found in the first area of discussion with the philosophers. It will show
that the criticisms given by al-Ghazali’s dialogue partners remain largely unanswered.
3 For discussion on al-Ghazali life, works, sufism and religious reform, see Ignaz Goldziher, Introduction
to Islamic Theology and Law (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981) 217-233.
4 Watt, Muslim Intellectual, 58.
5 Watt. Muslim Intellectual, 59. Note also that Fazlur Rahman agreed that although al-Ghazali overall
rejected the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian philosophies, since they could not provide religious certainty, he
did adopt the dualism of body and soul found in sufism. See Fazlur Rahman, Islam (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979) 95.
6 Watt, Muslim Intellectual, 59.
2
3. Given that, this paper will provide alternative philosophical proofs that allow al-Ghazali
to uphold his central thesis, while maintaining some air of the orthodoxy he sought to
defend.
Tahafut al-Falasifa: Discussion One, Proofs 1 and 2a
Al-Ghazali began his first discussion by noting that there are, historically, three
philosophical views on the world’s past eternity. The first and most widely held position
was that of “upholding [the world’s] past eternity: that it has never ceased to exist with
God, exalted be He, to be an effect of His, to exist along with Him, not be posterior to
Him in time.”7 The second position, related to Plato, suggested that the world was
“generated and originated in time.” The third position was agnostic in nature, and is
found in the works of Galen; it holds that one can never know “whether the world is pre-eternal
or temporally originated.”8
From these, al-Ghazali turned his polemic to the most widely held position,
believing that this position was heretical and had led many Muslims away from their
religion.9 Al-Ghazali accuses the philosophers of producing confusion by describing
creation as Neoplatonic emanation, instead of a creation ex nihilo. “The philosophers,”
comments Watt, “had been adapting Neoplatonic cosmology to Qur’anic conceptions by
equating emanation with creation.”10 Though the philosophers had many proofs for an
eternal universe, al-Ghazali chose to focus on three of the most powerful, considering all
others products of “feeble imagining.” Within this refutation of the arguments for the
7 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, Michael E. Marmura (trans. & ed.) (Provo, UT: Brigham
Young University Press, 2000) 12.
8 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 12.
9 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 2.
10 Watt, Muslim Intellectual, 60.
3
4. eternity of the world, can be discovered the kalam cosmological argument for the finite
temporality of the world.11
The cosmological argument, according to Majid Fakhry, is considered the
“classical argument for the existence of God in the West.”12 Though the cosmological
argument was found in philosophers such as al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd,13 based
on an infinite contingency, al-Ghazali argued that upholding the eternity of the universe
makes the affirmation of a Creator pointless.14 This was based on a traditional rejection of
the concept of efficient causality,15 seen clearly in Discussion Seventeen of the Tahafut,
where al-Ghazali “repudiates the validity of the causal principle…on the ground that the
alleged necessity of this principle is a mere illusion.”16 Efficient causality was, according
to al-Ghazali, an unwarranted inference based only on an apparent observation of a
11 Al-Ghazali also invokes other arguments for the existence of God. Binyamin Abrahamov writes, “the
argument from design figures also in the writings of al-Ghazali (d.1111). This argument, says al-Ghazali,
being acquired, since it is taught by the Kur’an, shows the right way to know God and achieve certainty
with regard to divine matters.” See Binyamin Abrahamov, Al-Kasim B. Ibraham on the Proof of God’s
Existence (The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1990) 5.
12 Majid Fakhry, “Classical Islamic Arguments for the Existence of God,” Muslim World 47:1957, 133-145.
Fakhry points briefly to the existence of the argument, in two different forms, in philosophers like Aristotle,
Ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd along with a second formulation found in Islamic, Jewish and Christian
theologians.
13 See William Lane Craig, The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz (London, Macmillan, 1980).
14 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 27. For a contemporary defense of the kalam cosmological
argument, see William Lane Craig, “”The Finitude of the Past and the Existence of God,” in William Lane
Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 3-76.
15 For a clear example of the concept of causality in Islamic philosophy, see Michael E. Marmura, “The
Metaphysics of Efficient Causality in Avincenna,” in Michael E. Marmura (ed.), Islamic Theology and
Philosophy: Studies in Honor of George F. Hourani (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,
1984) 172-187. Marmura states that while rooted in Aristotelian discussions of efficient causality, Ibn
Sina’s theory of efficient causality has been modified and expanded with a Neoplatonic flavor, since it
occurs in his very un-Aristotelian theory of emanation. For Ibn Sina, divine efficient causality is based in
the otherness of the divine, for it is a cause that bestows existence on that which differs from itself. It is
broader than simply a motion from potentiality to actuality, which is secondary causality, for it is a cause
coming from something other than itself. Ibn Sina’s theory of divine efficient causality, therefore, is
contingent on his emanation doctrine, in which the heavens are moved by their souls and the souls are
moved by their reflection on the divine. Thus, God becomes the supreme cause, being that it is from God
that the first emanation occurs. When emanation occurs in the sub-lunar world, it achieves a level of
plurality unseen in other emanations. Al-Ghazali’s problem with emanation, and thereby with an infinitely
temporal universe, is the assertion that within this scheme of emanation, cause and effect are co-existent
and co-eternal. God, therefore, is prior to the universe only in the sense that his essence is prior to the
essences that emanated from him.
16 Fakhry, “Classic Islamic Argument” 136.
4
5. correlation between temporal events. It is God; rather, who directly creates each and
every action in the universe in each and every moment.
Therefore, with “nearly a quarter of the Incoherence devoted to the issue of
whether the universe had a beginning in time…Ghazali ardently upholds the traditional
kalam argument.”17 The kalam form of the cosmological argument was based in the
traditional Ash‘arite (along with the Mu‘tazilah18) arguments for God’s existence – the
demonstration of the universe as a created thing.19 Fakhry notes,
The general procedure of the Mutakallims in proving the temporality of the
universe considered in showing that the world, which they defined as everything
other than God, was composed of atoms and accidents. Now the accidents, they
argued, cannot endure for two instants of time, but are continually created by God
who creates or annihilates them at will.20
Though al-Ghazali did not assert this doctrine explicitly in his first discussion, it factors
into his argument implicitly, along with appearing explicitly later in the philosopher’s
question about an atom receiving whiteness or blackness from God’s will. This is
important to note, because, for the Ash‘arite theologian, the world of atoms and accidents
was in a continuous state of change.21 A change that was directly actualized by the power
and will of God alone.
17 Craig, The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz, 98.
18 The Mu‘tazilah and Ash‘arite were two schools of theologians in the history of Islam, the former held
primacy in early Islam and the latter held primacy from the eighth century until the present. Al-Ghazali was
an Ash‘arite, a school committed to the divine sovereignty of God. Some made the claim that Mu’tazilah
theology, with its focus on human reason, is rising to prominence once again in post-colonial Muslim
countries. See Martin, Woodman, with Atmaja, Defenders of Reason in Islam: Mu‘tazilism from Medieval
School to Modern Symbol (Oxford: Oneworld, 1997)
19 William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (London: Macmillan, 1979), 7-8. Craig lists
the six arguments typically employed by the mutakallimun for this demonstration: the argument from the
contrary nature of simple bodies; the argument from experience; the argument from the finitude of motion,
time and temporal objects; the argument from the world’s composition of finite parts; the argument from
contingency; the argument from temporality. Craig notes that the first and second arguments were not
influential, and that the third and fourth arguments come from the Alexandria Christian theologian John
Philoponus (Yahya al-Nahwi). See also Fakhry, “Classical Islamic Arguments,” 135.
20 Fakhry, “Classical Islamic Arguments,” 136.
21 For a further discussion on the mutakallim doctrine of change with atoms and accidents, see Andrey
Smirnov, “Causality in Islamic Thought,” in E. Deutch and R. Bontekoe, A Companion to World
Philosophies (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997) 493-503.
5
6. Al-Ghazali’s kalam cosmological argument for finite temporality of the universe
can clearly be found in his Iqtisad and Jerusalem Letter, while it is only found implicitly
in the Tahafut, and was diagramed by the following syllogism.
1. Whatever began to exist has a cause for its coming into being. (Premise)
2. The universe began to exist. (Premise)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for coming into being. (From 1-2)22
Al-Ghazali, in accordance with common sense, perceived that the first premise is
indisputable. Therefore, it became important to demonstrate the truth of the second
premise – that the universe is finite and began to exist. In order to do so, al-Ghazali used
two lines of attack: first, showing that the philosophers had failed to demonstrate the
impossibility of the creation of a temporal entity from an eternal being; second, that the
beginning of the universe is demonstrable.23
Argument for the Eternity of the Universe
Al-Ghazali began his first proof by summarizing the argument between
theologians and philosophers, and started with his over arching premise: “That it is
impossible for the temporal to proceed from an eternal.”24 Al-Ghazali recorded the
philosopher’s argument, that without perceiving that the world proceeded from God co-eternally,
the world would remain in the realm of pure possibility, since “existence would
not have had that which gives [it] preponderance.”25 If the world did come into existence
temporally, then the One who gave it existence would have had to “come into existence
anew.” For if such an Originator did not come into existence anew, then the world would
22 Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1994) 58. This syllogism is based from al-Ghazali’s works, the Iqtisad and the Jerusalem Letter.
23 Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, 44.
24 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 13.
25 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 13.
6
7. remain in the realm of possibility. Yet, if the Originator did come into existence anew,
the question arises, “who originated this giver of preponderance and why did it originate
now and not earlier?”26 If the Eternal never changes, consequently, then either nothing
ever comes into existence or “it comes into existence perpetually.” For God cannot exist
in a state of refraining to act, then move into a state of acting. If this is not so, then the
question arises, why was the world created at one point and not another? Any answer
given here, by the theologians, can only infer “a change in the states of affairs in the
Eternal by way of power, instrument, time, purpose, or nature [that which] is
impossible.”27
Al-Ghazali offered some possible replies to this argument.28 William Lane Craig
comments
Al-Ghazali’s first point is a clear repudiation of the notion of perfect cause. God
is not the cause of the world in the sense that a cause is that which necessarily
accompanies its effect. But God is a cause in [a] second sense, a free agent that
precedes its effect. Thus, the effect (the universe) need not follow upon the heels
of the cause (God), but can appear a finite number of years ago when God willed
from eternity that it should.29
Al-Ghazali’s reply began with the assertion that God willed from all eternity to create the
world at a specific point.30 Al-Ghazali admits that an opponent would respond that this
still has the temporal occurrence of the world being necessitated and caused. And just as
it is impossible to have an event exist without a cause, it is just as impossible to have a
cause delaying an event, when all the conditions that are needed to cause such an event
exist and are ready to actualize the event. For such preconditions would necessitate the
cause of an event or thing. As applied to God and creation, this means having a willer, the
26 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 13.
27 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 14.
28 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 15.
29 Craig, Kalam Cosmological Argument, 12.
30 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 15.
7
8. will, and having the relation to what is willed occur, but not having the object of will
come into existence. This would mean that there be change within God, because there
would be a difference between states of affairs and being before and after creation, along
with the need for these causes to come into existence anew.31
Actions coming about through human intention are not delayed unless there is
some impediment. “Once intent and ability are realized, [all] obstacles being removed,
the delay of what is intended is not rationally intelligible.” It is only in the case of
“resolve” that a delay can be considered, for “resolve is not sufficient for the existence of
the act.” Therefore, “if the eternal will belongs to the same category as that of our
intention to act, then, unless there is an impediment, neither the delay of what was
intended nor the [temporal] priority of the intent are conceivable.” If the eternal will,
however, is similar to human resolve, in that resolve cannot be a cause itself, there would
then need to be a “renewed intentional upsurge” at the time of action to bring something
into existence. Such arising of a new intent within the Eternal would entail “upholding
change in the Eternal.” Furthermore, the question of why such an upsurge of intention
would occur at one point in time rather than another continues. Therefore, a necessitating
cause with intention to act and no impediment to action, having all conditions for an
action fulfilled, would have an action occur. To say this, and then affirm that this action
was delayed, only to come about at some future point with no new upsurge in intention or
condition is impossible.32
31 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 16. Al-Ghazali offers the analogy of a man pronouncing
divorce from his wife. Once a man makes the legal pronouncement of divorce, and separation does not
occur, “it is inconceivable for it to occur thereafter.” For the actual pronouncement is the “cause of the
judgment.” The only way a delay in the affect of the pronouncement could occur is if the man affixes some
condition to the utterance (e.g. the divorce will occur upon the coming of the next morning), making the
judgment relate to a future expected event.
32 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 17.
8
9. Al-Ghazali retorted by asking how the philosophers can know that the
impossibility of the eternal will relates to temporal creation. Is it through “necessity of
reason or its theoretical reflection?” Al-Ghazali wondered if the philosophers have an
implied middle term between “eternal will” and “temporal creation”? If there is a middle
term, which would make it a theoretical reflection, then al-Ghazali asks the philosophers
to show this middle term. If, however, this knowledge is understood by necessity of
reason, then why is it that the vast numbers of those who affirm temporal creation do not
share this knowledge? It is, therefore, according to al-Ghazali, the burden of the
philosopher to make a “demonstrative proof according to the condition of logic that
would show the impossibility of this.” For, according to al-Ghazali, all that the
philosophers have shown is “an expression of unlikelihood,” and an analogy between
divine and human will. Such an analogy, according to al-Ghazali, was false, for the
eternal will does not resemble the human will.
Al-Ghazali commented that a philosopher might reply that one knows through
necessity of reason that “a necessitating cause with all its conditions fulfilled is
inconceivable without a necessitated effect.” To this, al-Ghazali answered that the
philosophers resort to saying something similar, that divine knowledge is different than
human knowledge when it comes to the philosopher’s belief that God’s knowledge does
not necessitate any change in the one divine essence. That is, there is no multiplicity in
knowing multiple universals, or addition because of knowledge. Al-Ghazali admitted that
some philosophers have seen the impossibility of this theory, which was already denied
by Ash‘arite theology, and have put forth a belief that God thinks of God’s self alone –
making God the apprehender, the intellect, and the intelligible of divine knowledge.33 Al-
33 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 18.
9
10. Ghazali believed that such an affirmation was foolish, for it would make God into the
Creator who is not aware of his own creation.
Argument for Finite Temporality of the Universe
From here, al-Ghazali turned to his philosophical support for denying the eternity
of the world. Craig outlines the argument as follows:
1. There are temporal phenomena in the world.
2. These are caused by other temporal phenomena.
3. The series of temporal phenomena cannot regress infinitely.
4. Therefore, the series must stop at the Eternal.34
The first point is obvious, in that it is based in necessity of reason, for humans have
sensual experiences of things coming into being and passing away from existence. Craig
makes note of the second premise based on secondary causation, an idea that al-Ghazali
thoroughly rejects.35
This leads to al-Ghazali’s third premise, which was the crux of the argument. Al-
Ghazali argued, in three different places, that science and philosophy speak of a temporal
beginning to the universe. Al-Ghazali began by noting the contradiction in saying that
the revolutions of the planets are eternal, while at the same time one can determine the
length of their rotations around the world. “The world’s past eternity is impossible
because it leads to affirming circular movements of the heavenly sphere whose number is
infinite and whose individual units are innumerable, even though they [divide into] a
sixth, a fourth, a half [and so on].”36
34 Craig, Kalam Cosmological Argument, 45.
35 Craig, Kalam Cosmological Argument, 44-46. Craig concludes that this is a premise al-Ghazali grants to
his opponents for the sake of the argument.
36 Al-Ghazali states, in Incoherence of the Philosophers, 18: “for the sphere of the sun rotates in one year,
whereas Saturn’s rotates in thirty, so that the rotations of Saturn are a third of a tenth of the sun. [Again,]
the rotations of Jupiter are a half of a sixth of the rotations of the sun; for it rotates once in every twelve
years. [Now,] just as the number of rotations of Saturn is infinite, the number of solar rotations, although a
10
11. Next, al-Ghazali asked if one could determine whether the number of planet
rotations would be odd or even? If one states that they are either: odd or even, neither odd
nor even, or both odd and even, they are being irrational. For, “if you were to say that the
number is even, and the even becomes odd by [the addition of] one, then how can the
infinite be in need of one?” Or how can the odd be made even in an infinite system? One
is then forced to say that there is either odd or even, for the infinite is not like the finite,
in that numeration is not equated.37
Al-Ghazali pointed to this concept in the philosopher’s doctrine of the soul.
Affirming that there are an infinite number of souls does not match with necessity of
reason, in that there cannot be a numerated infinity. Some philosophers, according to al-
Ghazali, have resorted to the Platonic theory of souls, that there was one primordial soul
that was divided into each human, and all these separated souls will be reunited one day.
This idea was “repugnant” to al-Ghazali, for, according to rational necessity, one could
not say that the soul of one person is the same as another,38 in that each person
necessarily knows that their soul is unique to them and that they are not similar to
another. Moreover, if all souls were identical, then they would be equal in regard to their
attributes and cognition, which experience witnesses that they are not. Furthermore, how
can an infinite one, here a single infinite soul, be divided into two or one thousand? An
infinite cannot be divisible. As such, philosophically speaking, asserting that the universe
is infinite and eternal is illogical.
third of a tenth [of the latter], is [also] infinite. Indeed, the rotations of the sphere of the fixed stars, which
rotates [once in] every thirty-six thousand years, are infinite, just as the sun’s movement from east to west,
taking place in a day and a night, is [likewise] infinite. If one then were to say, ‘This is one of things whose
impossibility is known by the necessity [of reason],’ how would your [position] differ from his statement?”
37 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 19.
38 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 20.
11
12. Second, later in the same proof, al-Ghazali turned to a second objection to the
philosophers’ doctrine. “You deem the occurrence of a temporal event through an eternal
improbable when it is incumbent on you to acknowledge it. For in the world there are
events which have cause. If temporal events were to depend on [other] temporal events
ad infinitum, this would be impossible.”39 If this were so, there is no need to acknowledge
a Maker.
Al-Ghazali recorded that the philosophers might reply that their rejection was not
the improbability of the temporal event proceeding from an eternal, rather, they
Deem improbable the proceeding from an eternal an event that is a first event. For
the state of coming into existence does not differ from what precedes it with
respect to the preponderance of the direction of existence, whether in terms of the
presence of a temporal moment, an organ, a condition, a nature, a purpose, or any
cause. But if the event is not the first event, then it is possible [for a temporal
event] to proceed from [an eternal] with the temporal occurrence of some other
thing, such as a preparedness in the receptacle, the presence of suitable time, or
something of that sort.40
Al-Ghazali responded that putting aside ideas of preparedness, suitable time, and
something coming anew, the question remained that these temporal events are either
infinite or finite, ending at the eternal.41
Al-Ghazali then commented that philosophers will appeal to their theory of
emanation, stating that the basis of all temporal events is the “perpetual, eternal circular
of the heavens…[based in] the souls of the heavens.”42 For just as the human soul moves
the human body, so too do the heavenly souls move the heavenly bodies. It is these
movements that cause temporal events to occur. In response, al-Ghazali asked if these
circular motions of the heavens are temporal or eternal themselves. For if they are eternal,
39 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 21.
40 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 27.
41 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 28.
42 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 29.
12
13. “how does [this foundation] becomes a principle for the first temporal event? If temporal,
it would require another temporal event, [and so on,] regressing [ad infinitum].”43
Third, in Proof 2a, al-Ghazali assessed that when the philosophers spoke of God
as prior to the universe, it was a priority of essence, not time.44 Being a priority of essence
and not time means that the universe can exist co-eternally with its cause – God. Similar
to the movement of a ring by the hand’s movement, or the movement of the water by a
boat, the cause is co-existent with the effect. For if the Creator’s priority to the world was
temporal, the philosophers argue, then “God would have preceded the world by a lengthy
duration.”45 And if one asserts a concept of finite time, then it seems contradictory to say,
“before the existence of time, infinite time would have existed,” especially since time is a
measure of motion.
Al-Ghazali replied that “time is originated and created, and before it there was no
time at all.”46 Thus, God was prior to both the universe and time, meaning that the
essence of the Creator existed when the essence of the world did not exist. Furthermore,
there is no difference between asserting that God was and the world was not, or stating
that God will be and the world will be not – the future tense, as the philosophers might
uphold. For this statement is relative, since the “future itself can become a past and be
expressed in the past tense.”47 The problem in not seeing the timelessness of God is a
problem of imagination not logic, for argument or hypothesis cannot demonstrate this
argument to the “estimative faculty.”48
43 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 30.
44 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 30.
45 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 31.
46 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 31.
47 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 32.
48 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 35.
13
14. The Remaining Question of Divine Will
For al-Ghazali, all of this is to say, that the philosophers cannot affirm the eternity
of the world and thereby deny the connection between an eternal will and a temporal
creation. The philosopher’s question, however, remained: what “would have
differentiated a specific time from what precedes and succeeds it when it is not
impossible for [any of] the prior and posterior [times] to have been willed [as the
beginning of creation]?”49 Another instance was the theological position that an object
receives whiteness or blackness from the divine will, though the object is equally open to
receiving either whiteness or blackness. What was it within the divine will that
determines this object to be either white or black? How are white and black differentiated
in the divine will, if the object is equally receptive to either and there is supposedly no
difference between the two? Much like in the creation of the world, what differentiated
one time from another, when there is no difference between periods of time or between
the existence and non-existence of the world?
Craig notes that, in response, al-Ghazali used the “principle of determination,”
which is found in the theology of the mutakallim. “Since prior to the existence of the
universe, it was equally possible for it to be or not-to-be, a determinant whereby the
possibility of being could prevail over non-being was required; and this determinant was
God.”50 The problem in understanding what the mutakallim mean by this principle is
whether or not it spoke of a determinant as an efficient cause or reason.51 Craig states:
49 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 21.
50 Craig, Kalam Cosmological Argument, 10ff.
51 Craig comments that the problem is linguistic, in that the mutakallimun use the word “determinant”
interchangeably for either cause or reason. For example, al-Ghazali uses the terms murajjih and takhsis in
three different senses. First, he uses it as a principle, when determining or choosing without any motive one
of two similar objects to establish a distinction between them through choice. Second, as a principle that
determines or chooses without the motive being known, the existence of one or two opposites that seem
equally purposeful. Third, some dissimilarity that gives a motive for choice. Craig concludes that the first
14
15. “according to al-Ghazali, the principle of determination, in the sense of sufficient reason,
is simply invalid with regards to God.”52 Thus, for al-Ghazali, God as determinant was
believed to be God as an efficient cause of the existence of the universe.53 As such, al-
Ghazali replied that the world came into existence when it did, through the divine will
(the efficient cause).54 The will is an attribute of the divine and like the attribute of
knowledge, which possesses particular characteristics, the will is “an attribute whose
function is to differentiate a thing from its similar.”55 This, however, may seem
contradictory to the philosopher, who might respond that the definition of two things
being “similar” is that there is no way to discern between the two.56
Al-Ghazali answered that the philosophers might be confusing the fact that human
will and divine will are not analogous, that in fact, there may be a problem with language
at this point.57 Since there is an attribute of God that is able to choose between two
and second usages are efficient causes, while the third can be seen as a sufficient reason. See Craig, Kalam
Cosmological Argument, 10-11.
52 Craig, Kalam Cosmological Argument, 12.
53 Craig, Kalam Cosmological Argument, 13. Craig adds that al-Ghazali’s use of the principle of
determination is not simply the principle of efficient causality, which al-Ghazali rejects.
For the cause of the world to which the argument concludes is conceived by the Muslim thinkers
to be, not just the mechanically operating, necessary and sufficient conditions for the production
of an effect, but a personal agent who by an act of will chooses which equally possible alternative
will be realized. God is the sabab of the world, but not its ‘illa. Otherwise, the universe would
exist from eternity (See Craig, Kalam Cosmological Argument, 14).
For an explanation on the philosopher’s argument for efficient causality, see Michael E. Marmura, “The
Metaphysics of Efficient Causality in Avincenna,” in Marmura, Islamic Theology and Philosophy, 172-
187.
54 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 22.
55 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 22. R. M. Frank comments that al-Ghazali sees God’s
eternal attributes as “distinguishable from His essence and are eternal and are subsistent in His essence.”
According to al-Ghazali, there are no ontologically distinct “states” for God and his attributes. Rather he
follows a position closer to al-Juwayni. See R. M. Franks, Al-Ghazali and the Ash‘arite School (Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 1994) 48.
56 Al-Ghazali notes that his dialogue partners, the philosophers, might use the example of a thirsty man who
is given the choice between two similar glasses of water. Each glass is exactly the same, and so the man
chooses one glass over the other through some internal differentiation (the man is right handed, one glass
appears clearer, one is closer to him, etc.). (Incoherence of the Philosophers, 22).
57 Watt explains that al-Ghazali “has little difficulty in showing that this [analogy] is merely hypothetical.
He is, of course, no crude anthropomorphist. The question at issue between him and the philosopher is
whether the ground of all being is not adequately described by human analogies or by analogy to natural
forces.” See Watt, Muslim Intellectual, 60.
15
16. similar things, the term “will” may be problematic. Since religious law, however, permits
the use of the word “will” to apply to this attribute, it is sufficient for use.58
Ibn Rushd highlighted this in his response to al-Ghazali; in hisTahafut al-Tahafut,
he noted that there is a difference between will and action.59 Providing a possible solution
to al-Ghazali’s dilemma, Ibn Rushd proposed that
To suppose that the world, willed by God eternally, has come into being after a
certain lapse of time is logically admissible, but not that it has followed His action
after such a lapse of time, unless we assume that He was impeded by some defect
or impotence, which is absurd.60
The universe, therefore, was a product of God’s power and action, not a product of the
will. This is important since, Ibn Rushd, according to Fakhry, stated that the notion of an
“eternal will” is contradictory, just as a square circle or a married bachelor would be a
contradiction. Since “human will” is a force or state of compulsion, and even free will is
a force of desire, God cannot have will, for it would involve change in the divine essence.
As such, one can only speak of an “eternal will” in an analogous sense.61
Problems of Time and Divine Immutability
Al-Ghazali’s first discussion contained two problems, also found in medieval
philosophical theology in general: divine immutability and timelessness. Based on al-
58 Al-Ghazali’s idea, however, of the divine making a dispassionate choice between two similars of
existence and non-existence of the world, or whiteness and blackness, or shape and form of the world,
seems contradictory to his theodicy, where God seems to create particular forms for a purpose. Al-Ghazali
affirms a “best of all possible worlds” theodicy that states “God has arranged creation so well that not a
speck of dust or the subtraction of a gnat’s wing is undesigned. All aspects of the human life, pleasure and
pain or sickness and health are given in justice. This is so that the value of all things might be realized. “For
if it were not for night, the value of day would be unknown. Were it not for illness, the healthy would not
enjoy health. Were it not for hell, the blessed in paradise would not know the extent of the blessedness.”
See Eric Ormsby (ed.), Theodicy in Islamic Thought: the Dispute over Al-Ghazali’s “Best of All Possible
Worlds (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), 38-41.
59 Ibn Rushd, Tahafut al-Tahafut, Simon van der Bergh (trans. & ed.) (London, Luzac, 1954) 36.
60 Fakhry, Averroes, 18.
61 Fakhry, Averroes, 19.
16
17. Ghazali’s theological arguments, this portion of the paper will discuss these problems
within al-Ghazali’s discussion, and suggest a possible solution to them.
The medieval concept of divine immutability was clearly articulated by the
Islamo-Aristotelian influenced Christian theologian, Thomas Aquinas, in which he noted
that God cannot have potentiality, change, movement, addition or extension to his being,
because he is the first being.62 Though vehemently against all ideas Aristotelian, al-
Ghazali did not question the immutability of God. This, even though his dialogue partner
accused the theologians’ position of promoting it. Stating that if the world came into
existence temporally, God would have “come into anew,” or the world would remain in
the realm of possibility, led to a promotion of divine mutability. If this were so, there
would be change in the eternal, which never changes.63
In reply, al-Ghazali stated that God had willed from all eternity that the creation
of the universe would occur at a specific point in time. The philosophers, however, would
respond by saying that to have an event delayed after all conditions for existence have
been met, would still imply change in God, because there would be a difference between
states of affairs and being before and after creation, along with the need for these causes
to come into existence anew.64 The philosophers wondered if, then, one could invoke the
idea of “resolve,” in that, God could have resolved from eternity to create the world at a
62 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Volume 1 (Allen, TX: Thomas More, 1941) Q. 9, A. 1. “God is
altogether immutable. First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God;
and that this first being must be pure act, without admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that,
absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything that is in any way changed is in some way in
potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable. Secondly,
because everything which is moved, remain as it was in part, and passes away in part…thus everything
which is moved, there is some kind of composition to be found. But…in God there is no composition, for
He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot be moved. Thirdly, because everything which
is moved acquires something by its movement, and attains to what it had not attained previously. But since
God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire
anything new, nor extend Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously.”
63 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 13.
64 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 16.
17
18. particular point. The problem was, however, that when the time came for creation, a
“renewed intentional upsurge” would have had to occur within God to have a cause for
creation – which would entail divine change once again.65
Though, according to Fakhry, al-Ghazali’s assertion that the creation of the
universe as an act of divine will is sufficient and bypasses “the objection of the
Neoplatonists that creation in time would entail necessarily a change in the divine.”66 Al-
Ghazali’s only explicit response to the accusation of divine change was to say that the
philosophers held the same problem in their doctrine of divine knowledge.67
Nevertheless, the problem of divine immutability remains for al-Ghazali. William Hasker
comments that
In the philosophical lineage stretching from Parmenides to Plato to Plotinus, there
is a strong metaphysical and valuational preference for permanence over change.
True Being, in this tradition, must of necessity be changeless; whatever change,
on the other hand, enjoys a substandard sort of being if any at all.68
Al-Ghazali had agreed with the philosophers on this doctrine of immutability when such
an agreement was unnecessary. Hasker argues that Plato’s argument was faulty, setting
up a false dichotomy, in that Plato falsely assumed that change was either change for the
better or worse. Change, however, is not always for the better or worse. A clock, for
example, registers a particular time (say 3:30 PM) at one particular point of the day, and
at another point it registers another time (say 4:00 PM). There has been change within the
65 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 17.
66 Majid Fakhry, Averroes (Ibn Rushd): His Life, Works and Influence (Oxford: Oneworld, 2001) 14-15.
67 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 18. As stated above, “Ghazali replies that the philosophers
resort to saying that divine knowledge is different than human knowledge when it comes to the
philosopher’s belief that God’s knowledge does not necessitate any change in the one divine essence. That
is there is no multiplicity in knowing multiple universals or addition because of knowledge.”
68 William Hasker, “A Philosophical Perspective,” in Clark Pinnock et al, Openness of God (Downer’s
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994) 129. It is interesting to note that Alfred North Whitehead felt that if
philosophy was true to Plato, that there would be a “philosophy of organism,” where the temporal
participated in the divine. See Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: Macmillan, 1978)
39-40.
18
19. clock, but such change was not better or worse, it was simply a change.69 Affirming the
possibility of divine mutability, then, requires one to re-define what is meant by divine
perfection.
Al-Ghazali, despite upholding divine immutability and having shown from natural
science and philosophy that the universe was temporally finite, did not answer the charge
of the philosophers.70 If the universe is finite, and there was a time when God existed but
the universe did not exist, then God must be mutable. The philosophers, in al-Ghazali’s
words, commented that before the existence of the universe,
…infinite time would have existed, and this is contradictory; for the reason of the
affirmation of the finitude of time is impossible. If then, time, which is an
expression of the measure of motion, is necessarily pre-eternal, motion is
necessarily pre-eternal, and that which is motion and through duration time
endure is necessarily eternal.71
Al-Ghazali responded by saying that “time is originated and created and before it there
was no time at all.”72 Interestingly, al-Ghazali, again, as Michael Marmura has pointed
out, follows an Aristotelian understanding of time being a measurement of motion.73
Therefore, God was prior to both the universe and time, neither existed until they were
created. This was a natural conclusion from al-Ghazali’s affirmation of the temporally
finite creation and the immutability of God. Brian Leftow comments, “God’s being
immutable would entail God’s being timeless,”74 as seen in the following diagram:
69 Hasker, “A Philosophical Perspective,” 132.
70 Dean Zimmerman puts the problem this way: “God’s infinite past has been characterized by constant
change. If both God and the other thing existed during an interval, the change may not have involved God
[e.g. world’s eternal co-existence]. But if there were periods during which only God existed, then God
himself must have been undergoing constant intrinsic change during those times.” See Dean Zimmerman,
“God inside Time and before Creation,” in Gregory E. Ganssle and David M. Woodruff (eds.), God and
Time: Essays on the Divine Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 78.
71 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 31.
72 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 31.
73 Michael E. Marmura, "The Logical Role of the Argument from Time in the Tahafut’s Second Proof for
the World’s Pre-Eternity,” Muslim World 49, 1959. Since temporal phenomena have an origin, then time
itself must have an origin.
74 Brian Leftow, Time and Eternity (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991) 79.
19
20. 1. Necessarily, if anything is God, it acts.
2. Necessarily, every temporal act is of finite duration. Therefore…
3. Necessarily, every temporal agent changes in every act from acting to not
acting or vice-versa. Therefore…
4. Necessarily, if God does not change, God is not temporal. Therefore…
5. Necessarily, if God cannot change, God cannot be temporal.75
Therefore, “if God is not located in time, it follows that God does not change. In fact, as
whatever is timeless is necessarily so, if God is timeless, God cannot change.”76 To assert
God as timeless would force a theologian to additionally assert that God was immutable.
For, as Garrett DeWisse has pointed out, a timeless being would be immaterial, necessary
and immutable.77 If, then, al-Ghazali held to a doctrine of divine timelessness, his theory
that God eternally willed the creation to occur could be sound. For any immutable being
would be bound by its past choices and could do no other than what this being has
intended to do from the beginning.
The problem of God’s immutability, however, remains even with the doctrine of
timelessness. As Leftow indicates, the classical doctrine of God in Judeo-Christian-
Islamic theology holds that God is also omnipresent. Since the world and time were
created at the same moment, space, like time, would be temporally finite. Thus, how can
God be omnipresent when space is not existent? Change in the divine, therefore, would
have to have taken place when the universe was created.78
Furthermore, “no immutable being can be aware of change occurring. If no object
of an immutable God’s experience can change, God must have a changeless experience
75 Leftow, Time and Eternity, 79.
76 Leftow, Time and Eternity, 299.
77 Garrett DeWisse, “Atemporal, Sempiternal, or Omnitemporal: God’s Temporal Mode of Being,” in
Gregory E. Ganssle and David M. Woodruff (eds.), God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001) 52-53. DeWisse concludes that timeless, or atemporal beings contain three
characteristics: they are abstract, unlike concrete temporal entities; they must exist necessarily; and they are
immutable. DeWisse, however, adds that no theologian would want to uphold that God is abstract.
78 Leftow, Time and Eternity, 302.
20
21. of the world.”79 “The notion that deity is ‘Absolute’ has meant that God is not really
related to the world.”80 As Hasker points out, “temporal events exist in time as the
medium of temporal succession, so it would seem that a being which experiences them
directly must itself exist in time and experience succession – but of course, this is just
what a timeless being cannot do.”81 Hasker outlines the problem as such:
1. If God is directly aware of a thing, that thing is metaphysically present to God.
(Premise)
2. If God knows temporal beings, God knows all their temporal stages. (Premise)
3. If God is directly aware of temporal beings, all of their temporal stages are
metaphysically present to God. (From 1-2)
4. If the temporal stages of a temporal being are metaphysically present in God, they
are present either sequentially or simultaneously. (Premise)
5. If God is timeless, nothing is present to God sequentially. (Premise)
6. If God is timeless and is directly aware of temporal beings, all their temporal
stages are simultaneously, metaphysically present to God. (From 3-5)
7. If the temporal stages of a temporal being are simultaneously, metaphysically
present to God, those stages exist simultaneously. (Premise)
8. The temporal stages of a temporal being do not exist simultaneously. (Premise)
9. If God is timeless, God is not directly aware of temporal beings. (From 6-8)82
Such an idea would counter al-Ghazali’s criticism of the philosopher’s doctrine of divine
knowledge of particulars. It is obvious from Discussion One of the Tahafut,83 as well as
Discussions Eleven, Twelve and Thirteen, that al-Ghazali wants to avoid saying that God
is not aware of particulars.84 Al-Ghazali, therefore, is caught in a dilemma, either he
affirms that God is timeless and ignorant of particulars or that God is not timeless and is
personal.
79 Leftow, Time and Eternity, 342.
80 John Cobb and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976) 8.
81 William Hasker, “The Absence of a Timeless God,” in Gregory E. Ganssle and David M. Woodruff
(eds.), God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 185.
82 Hasker, “The Absence of a Timeless God,” 186.
83 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 18.
84 Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, Discussions Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen. God’s
knowledge can never hold a present knowledge of presently occurring events. God’s knowledge of present
events can only take place in his divine determinism and foreknowledge of said events from infinite past.
21
22. From the Tahafut, along with his sufi tendencies, it would be likely that al-
Ghazali would wish to affirm the personal nature of God in relation to creation. As such,
al-Ghazali could have given up his premise that God is timeless, instead holding to some
notion of absolute or metaphysical time. Gregory Ganssle outlines this logic:
1. If God is personal, God is temporal.
2. If God is temporal, time exists.
3. God is necessarily a person.
4. God is necessarily temporal.
5. Time, therefore, exists necessarily.85
This affirmation that God and time are necessary would have allowed al-Ghazali to reject
the Aristotelian notion of timethat was held by the philosophers. The philosophers,
however, in al-Ghazali’s representation of them, seemed to be implicitly aware of some
notion of absolute time, in their question of how God determined one moment over
another, in time, to create the world. They, no doubt, wanted to show that the world needs
to be eternal, yet in granting al-Ghazali the possibility of a temporally finite universe, a
notion of absolute time, time that exists before and after creation, may have been
admissible. It is this notion of absolute time that can make al-Ghazali’s argument
consistent once again.
This would then divide our notion of time into two concepts, physical time and
metaphysical (or absolute) time. DeWisse defines physical time as referring “to time in
any temporal world containing physical objects;” and defines metaphysical time as “the
succession of moments or events through which concrete objects persist, but since
concrete objects need not be material objects, metaphysical time is not identical to
physical time.”86 If absolute time exists, God need not be timeless, for God could be, in
85 Gregory E. Ganssle, “Introduction,” in Gregory E. Ganssle and David M. Woodruff (eds.), God and
Time: Essays on the Divine Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 8.
86 DeWisse, “Atemporal, Sempiternal, or Omnitemporal,” 49-50.
22
23. DeWisse’s terminology, omnitemporal. In other words, God’s divine eternity is not
timeless, but infinite and everlasting temporal duration.
By definition, the same relation that constituted by any other type of time –
causation, constitutes metaphysical or absolute time. Since, as Michael Robinson states,
“time devoid of events is meaningless,”87 for there is need for some movement or change.
As it relates to God, according to DeWisse, it is the “causal succession of mental states in
God’s conscious life [that] grounds the flow and direction of metaphysical time.”88 This
involves denying any doctrine of immutability, for it would entail that God’s mind,
anthropomorphically speaking, could move from successive foci of thought.
Additionally, if God is considered the Creator of this universe, then it is absolute time
that forms the ground of physical time in the universe.
An entity that is metaphysically temporal, existing at all times, therefore, exists
necessarily. Also, the omnitemporal entity would exist in a temporal stream where the
metaphysical “now” relates to the physical “now.” Thus, “an omnitemporal entity will be
temporally present at every present moment of any possible physical time.”89 This, then,
alleviates the denial of God knowing particulars and the implication of an impersonal
God. A temporal notion of God, therefore, allows: a period of metaphysical time to pass
before the creation of the universe; for divine action in the physically temporal universe;
and for theology to allow God to have a pre-existing determination of when the world
will come into being (though not necessary if Platonic notions of change are disregarded).
87 Michael Robinson, Eternity and Freedom: A Critical Analysis of Divine Timelessness as a Solution to the
Foreknowledge / Free Will Debate (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995) 67.
88 DeWisse, “Atemporal, Sempiternal, or Omnitemporal,” 56.
89 DeWisse, “Atemporal, Sempiternal, or Omnitemporal,” 56.
23
24. The problem of asserting absolute time, according to Robinson, “is that it is
allegedly incompatible to Einstein’s Special and General theories of relativity.”90 Craig
answers this criticism, in his article “The Elimination of Absolute Time by the Special
Theory of Relativity.”91 Focusing on the distinction made between absolute
(metaphysical) time and relative (physical) time in Isaac Newton’s cosmology, Craig
suggests that philosophers and scientists have often overlooked the close attachment
between God and absolute time in Newton’s writings.92 God constitutes absolute time and
”because God is eternal, there exists an everlasting duration” – hence absolute time is
contingent on God.93 Physical time, however, is relative and relativistic, being dependent
on physical motion. Einstein’s positivistic theory, therefore, can only correct Newton’s
notion of physical time, not absolute time that is not empirically detectable, but
philosophically grounded.94
If absolute time, therefore, is logically coherent, and establishes a foundation for
the kalam cosmological argument, as seen in Craig’s contemporary defense of the
argument, al-Ghazali would have been able to deny Aristotelian and Neoplatonic notions
of the eternity of the world, and have developed a new philosophical foundation for his
theological affirmation.
Conclusion
90 Robinson, Eternity and Freedom, 69.
91 William Lane Craig, “The Elimination of Absolute Time by the Special Theory of Relativity,” in
Gregory E. Ganssle and David M. Woodruff (eds.), God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001) 129-152.
92 Craig, “The Elimination of Absolute Time,” 130.
93 Craig, “The Elimination of Absolute Time,” 130.
94 Craig, “The Elimination of Absolute Time,” 131. Craig adds that the scientist and natural philosopher
have come to deny absolute time, because it is empirically unidentifiable. Einstein’s rejection of absolute
time is based on logical positivism of Machian providence. Since logical positivism is a defeated
philosophical method, the logic of absolute time can be observed since absolute time transcends physical
measurements of it.
24
25. Al-Ghazali’s kalam cosmological defense for the world’s finite existence proved a
challenge for Islamic philosophy, one that even Ibn Rushd was unable to put to rest. In
the history of the cosmological argument in Islam, al-Ghazali’s presentation demonstrates
a high point. Fakhry concludes that
Al-Ghazali’s major contribution to the discussion of the problem was twofold. In
the first place, he brought out in a very forcible way the radical opposition
between the teaching of Islam and the Aristotelian conception of the universe
developing itself eternally and everlasting; and in the second place, he gave added
point to the arguments already advanced by the Mutakallims, by amplifying and
perfecting them.95
Nevertheless, this paper has shown that al-Ghazali did not effectively answer the charge
of divine immutability. That, in fact, his solution of asserting the timelessness or
atemporality of God only served to make the charge more severe.
As a possible solution, this paper suggests that al-Ghazali needed not to deny
divine mutability or divine temporality. That, in fact, if he promoted similar positions to
the ones outlined above, his argument of the temporal finiteness of the universe would
have laid on a more solid foundation.
To say this, however, is not to deny al-Ghazali’s powerful impact on Western
philosophy. As Rahman comments
He was thus destined to prove the first and greatest reformer of Sufism, for which
at the same time he secured a place in the structure of Islamic orthodoxy. And,
what is even more important, he brought the formal, dogmatic formulation of the
orthodox kalam into contact with the living religion, thereby revitalizing them and
infusing into them the original spirit of Revelation. He thus dealt a powerful blow
to pure scholasticism, softened the dogmatic character of the creed and
established a vital nerve between the inner and the exterior aspects of religion.96
95 Fakhry, “Classical Islamic Arguments,” 139.
96 Rahman, Islam, 95.
25
26. Al-Ghazali, therefore, is highly commended for his ingenious foray into philosophical
arguments in favor of the existence of a finite universe that responds to the actsof a
sovereign God.
APOLOGIES FOR ANY TYPING ERRORS
KINDLE EDITION EDITED BY
UZMA JONES
26