Creation

At the outset of the discussion Maimonides presents three fundamentally different views on this issue: the traditional view treating the world in its entirety as created ex nihilo; the Platonic view that the world is created from eternal matter since creation ex nihilo is regarded as absolutely impossible; the Aristotelian view that the world existed without beginning with God as its source. Since the Pla-tonists, like the Aristotelians, posit some form of eternal state to the world, Maimonides feels that it is sufficient to tackle the more rigorous arguments ofthe Aristotelians on this question and ignore the Platonic approach. Maimon-ides maintains that while the Aristotelians have presented many arguments in support of their view, none of them is demonstrative. He summarizes and critiques the known philosophic arguments for eternity showing that each suffers from a major flaw. The philosophic proofs are either predicated on the laws of physics, such as every motion must be preceded by a motion, hence motion is without beginning, or on theological premises, such as creation entails a change in God, while it has been demonstrated that God is not subject to any form of change. Against the former set of proofs Maimonides argues that physical laws came into being with the creation of the world and do not reflect the state of affairs prior to creation. In other words, they are natural laws, and not logical ones, which God introduced when creating the world. The theological proofs for eternity are regarded by Maimonides as more compelling since they are based on the nature of the Deity. He argues that the act of creation does not entail the movement from potentiality to actuality, nor does the act of willing after not willing entail a change of essence since this is the essence of will - that is to say, to will or not will. Only if we posit external factors influencing the divine will would this entail a change in God. The argument that just as God’s wisdom, which mandated the creation of the world is eternal so must the world be eternal is dismissed by Maimonides on the grounds that we do not fathom the divine wisdom which may have mandated the creation of a non-eternal world.

Maimonides concedes that his critique of the philosophic arguments does not in itself constitute a proof for creation, it only shows that creation is possible from a philosophic perspective. Maimonides presents one dialectical argument for creation which he finds rationally compelling, one based on the notion of ‘‘particularization’’ - that is to say, the peculiarities exhibited by the heavenly order which indicate that they are a product of design. While the Aristotelians, according to Maimonides, can provide a true explanation for the lack of uniformity in the entities of the earth, they have no convincing explanation for the lack of uniformity in the size of the planets or the differences in their motion. Since these particulars cannot result from natural necessity - the matter of which the heavenly bodies are composed is completely uniform - they must be the product of one who particularized them in this manner. This in turn entails their creation. Maimonides is aware that one can still argue that God may have particularized them in this manner from eternity. His rejoinder is that the eternity of the world entails necessity, eternal creation being an oxymoron, and only by positing the world’s creation from a state of absolute nonexistence, can one explain those particularities of the heavenly order that reflect divine purpose and will.

A version of this argument was already brought by al-(Gazali in his Incoherence of the Philosophers with a critical difference. Al-(Gazali tries to show that there are aspects of the heavens that reflect the workings of absolute will that can choose between alternatives that are completely alike from the perspective of reason. This proves the existence of a divine will which has in its power the creation of a world when it wills, though there is no rational reason why it chose to create it when it did as opposed to any other possible moment. Maimonides treats the creation of the world with all its peculiarities not only the result of will but also purpose and wisdom. There is for him a rational reason for all the particularities of the heavenly order and they are not the product of will alone. According to Maimonides, the eternity, hence the necessity, of the world does not leave room for the designing of a heavenly world in which all its non-standardized particulars are the product of wisdom.

To the philosophic arguments in favor of creation Maimonides also brings a list of theological arguments. Creation is in harmony with the literal meaning of the Torah, which should be maintained when there is no demonstrative argument against the literal reading. Moreover, only by positing creation can we explain why God granted certain individuals prophecy and why He gave a certain nation the divine law and why He legislated certain prohibitions. A world governed by natural necessity provides no answers to these questions - in short, it leaves no room for revelatory religion.