14.02.2021 Views

Tahafut_al-Tahafut-transl-Engl-van-den-Bergh

a book on philosophy

a book on philosophy

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

who believes in this possibility, because the contrary would imply a denial

of God’s power, this argument is valid, for this spatial possibility is just as

much a purely rational concept as the possibility of temporal anteriority

according to the philosophers. Therefore, he who believes in the temporal

creation of the world and affirms that all body is in space, is bound to

admit that before the creation of the world there was space, either

occupied by body, in which the production of the world could occur, or

empty, for it is necessary that space should precede what is produced.’

The man who denies empty space and affirms the finiteness of body-like

certain later Ash’arites who, however, separated themselves from the

principles of the theologians; but I have not read it in their books and it

was told to me by some who studied their doctrines-cannot admit the

temporal production of the world. If the fact of this extension which

measures movement and which stands in relation to it as its measurement

were indeed the work of an illusion-like the representation of a world

bigger or smaller than it really is-time would not exist, for time is nothing

but what the mind perceives of this extension which measures movement.

And if it is self-evident that time exists, then the act of the mind must

necessarily be a veracious one, embodying reason, not one embodying

illusion.

Ghazali says:

I say

It has been objected: we declare that what is not possible

is what cannot be done and increase or decrease in the size

of the world is impossible, and therefore could not be

brought about .

This is the answer to the objection of the Ash’arites that to admit that

God could not have made the world bigger or smaller is to charge Him

with impotence, but they have thereby compromised themselves, for

impotence is not inability to do the impossible, but inability to do what can

be done.

Ghazali, opposing this, says:

This excuse is invalid for three reasons: The first is that it

is an affront to reason, for when reason regards it as

94

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!