In the history of concepts, there is no concern that Al-Ghazali’s figure emerges as one of the best Western thinkers. Considered as the prominent Sunni theologian that ever lived, Al-Ghazali’s polemic againstNeoplatonic thinkers, mainly Ibn Sina, dealt a fatal rage to philosophy within Islamic world. Written following his period of private study of philosophy, and completed in 1094 CE, Tahafut al-Falasifa carried the purpose of pursuing the analysis of reason that inspired his stint of cynicism, and was attempting to illustrate that reason is not self-reliant in the sphere of metaphysics and is incapable out of itself to construct an absolute world-view. Whereas, as Goldziher (1981) explains, Al-Ghazali uniquely held certain beliefs which he refuted in Tahafut, he wanted to demonstrate that reason on its own cannot establish that the world has the creator, two gods are unfeasible, God is not an entity or a body, and that he understand both himself and others, that the spirit is a self-resilient body. This paper will analyze Al-Ghazali’s argument on the eternity of the world, as found in his first areas of debate with philosophers and evaluated against Ibn Rushd’s answers.
Al-Ghazali started his first argument by stating that historically, there are three philosophical perceptions on the past eternity of the world. The most generally held point is that of maintaining (the world’s) earlier eternity: that it has never stopped to be present with God, glorified be He, being a consequence of His, to prevail along with Him, and not being subsequent to Him over time (Jackson, 2002). Another position that is related to Plato, proposed that the world was created and
begun in time. Out of these, Al-Ghazali turned his polemic toward the mos...
... middle of paper ...
...premise is indubitable. Thus, it became significant to show the truth of the premise that the world is finite and started to exist. So as to do this, Al-Ghazali utilized two important lines of attack: the first by demonstrating that the theorists had failed to show the impracticality of creation of the worldly body from an eternal being; the second that the start of the world is demonstrable.
Al-Ghazali started his verification of argument one by summarizing the claim between philosophers and theologians, and began with his over arching assertion: that it is hard for temporal to ensue from an eternal. He recorded the argument of the philosophers, which without recognizing that the universe emerged from God co-eternally, the universe would linger in the sphere of real possibility, because continuation would have had that which offers [it] predominance
(Dutton, 2001).
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
The Ontological argument was presented in his work “Proslogion” in two parts. It should be noted that this entire argument was formed from reason which is the process of forming conclusions and judgements through logic. As a result, a prior (first hand) knowledge is used. The first part is focused on proving God’s existence.
Throughout history there has always been discussions and theories as to how the universe came to be. Where did it come from? How did it happen? Was it through God that the universe was made? These philosophies have been discussed and rejected and new theories have been created. I will discuss three theories from our studies, Kalam’s Cosmological Argument, Aquinas’s Design Argument, and Paley’s Design Argument. In this article, I will discuss the arguments and what these arguments state as their belief. A common belief from these three theories is that the universe is not infinite, meaning that the universe was created and has a beginning date. Each believe that there was a God, deity, or master creator that created the universe for a reason. They also believe that
Although their methods and reasoning contrasted one another, both philosophers methodically argued to come to a solid, irrefutable proof of God, which was a subject of great uncertainty and skepticism. Through Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous and Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes and Berkeley paved the way towards an age of confidence and faith in the truth of God’s perfect existence actively influencing the lives of
Many readers follow Descartes with fascination and pleasure as he descends into the pit of skepticism in the first two Meditations, defeats the skeptics by finding the a version of the cogito, his nature, and that of bodies, only to find them selves baffled and repulsed when they come to his proof for the existence of God in Meditation III. In large measure this change of attitude results from a number of factors. One is that the proof is complicated in ways which the earlier discourse is not. Second is that the complications include the use of scholastic machinery for which the reader is generally quite unprepared -- including such doctrines as a Cartesian version of the Great Chain of Being, the Heirloom theory of causaltiy, and confusi ng terms such as "eminent," "objective" and "formal reality" used in technical ways which require explanation. Third, we live in an age which is largely skeptical of the whole enterprise of giving proofs for the existence of God. A puzzled student once remaked, "If it were possible to prove that God exists, what would one need faith for?" So, even those inclined to grant the truth of the conclusion of Descartes' proof are often skeptical about the process of reaching it.
To begin, proof of God’s existence is seen in the group of cosmological arguments. The cosmological arguments are a set of arguments that demonstrate the existence of a sufficient reason or first cause of the existence of the cosmos, or the universe as a whole. There are three different types of cosmological arguments, the Kalam, Thomist and and Leibnizian cosmological arguments. Proponents of the cosmological argument include Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke. Contemporary defenders include William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.
Al Ghazali a significant person in Islam has helped shape Islam to be what it is today - a living religious tradition for the lives of its adherents. His contribution to Islam though his theories, knowledge and works have left a positive impact upon the Islamic world that continues into the present. An everlasting impact upon the faith, Muslims and the expansion of Islam to be one of the most popular religious traditions in the present world for the lives of its adherents is seen as Al Ghazali’s
He concludes he did not create the idea of God. A finite being is incapable of creating an idea of an infinite possibility. Therefore, God must have created the idea already in him when he was created. Concluding that God exists. He also touches upon the idea in which he resolves that it cannot be a deceiver.
The Islamic tradition, as reflected in Naguib Mahfouz’s Zaabalawi, has over the course of history had an incredible impact on Arab culture. In Mahfouz’s time, Islamic practices combined with their political relevance proved a source of both great power and woe in Middle Eastern countries. As alluded to in Zaabalawi, Mahfouz asserts the fact that not all Muslims attain religious fulfillment through this common tradition, and other methods outside the scope of Islam may be necessary in true spiritual understanding.
Descartes intuits this self-evident proposition and at the same time simultaneously infers his own existence. By an act of simple mental vision, he clearly and distinctly perceived that he exists from a clearly and distinct premise about what he thought. The Cogito for him meets the criterion of truth that he previously formed. This proposition cannot be undermined because it is a privileged truth and is not subjected to the ‘evil genius’. Such a truth is also indubitable. It should be stated out here that he was thinking not so much in the order of existence but r...
Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties are supposed to use on this search for truth and God. There are many stances and viewpoints on the issues of faith and reason. Some believe that both of these ideas cannot and should not be combined; these parties deem that faith and reason must be taken as merely separate entities. However, this writer does not understand why both entities cannot be combined; both terms are so closely compatible that it would make sense to combine the two for a common task. Based on various class discussions and readings, there are many philosophers and theologians who have certain opinions regarding faith, reason and their compatibility; these philosophers include Hildegard of Bingen, Ibn Rushd, Moses Maimonides, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The following essay will examine each of the previously stated philosopher’s viewpoints on faith and reason, and will essentially try to determine whether or not faith and reason are ultimately one in the same.
1-Fakhry, Majid. Al-Farabi, founder of Islamic Neoplatonism : his life, works and influence, Oxford: Oneworld,c 2002. Print.
Augustine and Al-Ghazali, two medieval philosophers that have not interacted throughout their lives, both hold arguments on their thought of skepticism. Narrowing down the focus of skepticism to the doubt of self-existence and the certainty of knowledge/mind. This paper will analyze both of their views on why skepticism is important in doubting the absolution of vision, their arguments for and against skepticism, and lastly the focus on skeptical thinking and the purpose it’s meant to achieve. In doing so will present the views of both thinkers in how they views of skepticism is compatible in some aspects and does contrasts, nevertheless both dialogues hold merit in their thinking of why we ought to be skeptical in our senses of vision and in the knowledge/mind.
Averroës, and Simon Van Den Bergh. Averroes' Tahafut Al-tahafut: (The Incoherence of the Incoherence). London: Trustees of the "E.J.W. Gibb Memorial", 1978. Print.