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
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