Al Ghazali Argumentative Analysis

Superior Essays
This argument seems to be based on an assumption, on the part of Al-Ghazali, that there is a sense of possibility which is external and above God: one that even God must remain bound by. This can be seen in the juxtaposition of the conclusion and the sixth premise. In the conclusion, Al-Ghazali is content with the claim that God cannot have created a better creation since such a creation is not possible. In premise six, however, Al-Ghazali is quite unhappy with the notion that God is not able to create a creation which is both possible and better than the one in which we live. Al-Ghazali, then, does not take issue with the claim that God cannot do something. Rather, he takes issue with the claim that God cannot do something which is possible. …show more content…
All others “drown” in its complexity and depth. He goes on to say in lines eighty-nine through ninety-two that the equally difficult to understand concept of divine predestination is contained within the concepts laid out in the rest of his discussion, although he does not delve into it. In final summary on lines ninety-three through ninety-five, he summarizes, writing that good and evil are predetermined to exist necessarily and adding that good and evil come to be only after a prior choice on the part of God. This statement does not answer the question of how God can have volition if good and evil come into being by necessity. The only possible explanation is that since good and evil come to be only after the act of divine volition, the act itself may not be a necessary one, only the result of the action (good and evil coming to be). This solves the problem brought up by lines forty-one through forty-three, but it leaves open the question brought up in lines forty-six through forty-nine. Does God not, by necessity, have to choose the most just and generous possible creation, and in that necessity lose His choice and volition? These questions Al-Ghazali does not answer, instead ending in lines ninety-five …show more content…
He states that this excerpt was not intended as a philosophical defense or demonstration but, rather, as an “exhortation to a specific state on the Sufi path.” If his only goal was to encourage people on the Sufi path to strive for the furtherance of their spiritual understanding of God and his unity, as Ormsby claims, then there would be no reason for Al-Ghazali to include rigorous philosophical proofs since the heart can be moved without the use of

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Mackie's Argument Analysis

    • 1868 Words
    • 8 Pages

    However, while Mackie’s argument is valid, it is not sound. Ultimately, it fails in proving that God does not exist. The primary fault with Mackie’s argument lies in premise 5, which states that “An omniscient, perfectly good, and omnipotent God must eliminate all evil.” The fault lies within the word must. Why must God eliminate all evil? Mackie, in this argument, fails to consider the motives behind God’s actions.…

    • 1868 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If this is true and God is truly an all-knowing God, then we would not have free choice. It would contradict his power. An all-knowing God cannot ever be wrong. If he knew what was going to happen and every detail to anything then we were only following God’s wish not our free choice. Aquinas argued this, though.…

    • 1634 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    I can conjure the idea of God by simply thinking away my limitations. In other words, because I am the opposite of God, being finite and imperfect, perhaps I could be the cause of something ‘not imperfect’ and ‘not finite’. Descartes responds saying that this negative conception of infinity and perfection is not the idea of God – instead the idea of God requires a positive conception of these properties and not the absence of limits, but something for which there can be no limits. Nevertheless, this requirement conflicts with Descartes’ claim that as finite minds, we cannot form a clear idea of God’s infinity but also, whilst the idea of God is not clear, Descartes claims that it is clearly and distinctly a positive idea (not negative) – this seems very contradictory since an idea is not distinct unless it is clearly separated from all other ideas. Descartes must insist that the idea of God is positive as if it was negative, then it would become possible that we are the cause of God as we are finite beings.…

    • 1503 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    He finds himself in the maze of circular reasoning about not erring about God because God is an entity that cannot err so the premise fulfills the conclusion. He is satisfied not knowing the reasons for his imperfection and relinquishes his critical intellect to mere some reasoning the supreme creator has. His reasoning for human errors is a simultaneous concurrence of intellect and will. He agrees that all the intellect should not be given to one person rather than be distributed amongst many. He also agrees that his intellect, faculty of understanding, memory or imagination are highly feeble and limited that of God.…

    • 1073 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Will Of God Case Study

    • 884 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Counter arguements As the divine command theory is logically exhaustive, a supporter must choose one of the above options to follow. However as both of them lead to be false, Divine command theory cannot be supported, and therefore god cannot be the only guide to which actions are right or wrong. Divine command theory what makes an action right is that god commands it to be done what makes an action wrong is that god commands it not to be done morals cannot change as it is the word of god, society doesn 't matter reasons for actions do not matter, only that the action is…

    • 884 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    For, true faith occurs when the belief in question is known to be false. But Kierkegaard’s God is neither imperfect nor perfect like that of Hume, or lawless like that of Dostoevsky. Rather he is simply vague—a concept to which we assign a name. Acknowledging this opacity allows Kierkegaard to almost, if not entirely ignore the matter of evil. Presumably, his conclusion may be that because God does not exist and all we have control over is whether or not we choose to believe, we need not justify the role of suffering since there is no protective force watching over…

    • 1087 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Free Will Problem

    • 1005 Words
    • 5 Pages

    the PKG god) and though using god seems like it would cancel out any question that free will does in fact exists, in actuality bringing god into it makes things more complicated. The concept of free choice and a god that is both all knowing and all good is paradoxical because if god is not ignorant of our choices and is aware of them before we even make them, then how are our decisions made freely? In addition, how is god all good? After all, a god that is all good would surely interfere if he knew that a choice made would cause suffering. To conclude, if one believes in the PKG one must also admit that the free will does not actually exist because that would mean that god is unaware of the choices one makes and therefore is not all-knowing or all good.…

    • 1005 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In nature we see that each occasion has a cause; consequently, there more likely than not been an underlying cause to get the universe to unfurl as so. The underlying cause is God. This contention does not include any decisiveness, yet rather just pushes the inquiry further for one could request that what created God exist? A run of the mill answer to this is God does not have any significant bearing to the circumstances and end results law expressed and exists in light of the fact that. It appears to be difficult to contend this however one could without much of a stretch envision that some matter just exists as well; and that it doesn 't make a difference to the circumstances and end results administer yet exists in light of the fact that.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To reexamine the argument in favor, I would say that it is a valid argument, because if the premises are true then the conclusion would also logically be true. However, premise one is not completely true, due to the fact that there are people who do not believe in God. Agnostics and atheists would not hold true that acts are morally right if God commands them. The objection to the existence of God is a major reason why the Divine Command Theory is not able to fully support the argument. If God is not real, then He could not have created or interpreted morals.…

    • 802 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Do God And Evil Coincide?

    • 1284 Words
    • 6 Pages

    He says that we try to come up with solutions so that God can logically exist, but they all fail at creating any logical arguments. One of our solutions is that good cannot exist without evil, but he says this is a fallacy because if God had limitless power then he could create good without evil, which means God does not exist. Next is that evil is as a means to good which is a huge restriction to God’s power because it is basically saying that God has to follow some sort of rule. Lastly there is the idea that evil exists because humans have free will; God could have and should have created us to only know and act good, which would then mean that evil would never have existed if he was actually all-powerful. He says that this disproves God because we would not have been created like this if he really were all-powerful, but I believe there was a…

    • 1284 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays