Al-ghazali’s Argument For the Eternity of the World and the Problem of Divine Immutability and Timelessness

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 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 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]

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-Ghazali believed that such an affirmation was foolish, for it would make God into the Creator who is not aware of his own creation.