![prefer to swim in the waters of their ignorance, and to “go down
very low,” need not exert the body or heart; they need only cease to
move, and they will go down by the law of nature. Note and
consider well all we have said.
[Contents]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-21-320.jpg)
![CHAPTER XI
When a simple mathematician reads and studies these astronomical
discussions, [167]he believes that the form and the number of the
spheres are facts established by proof. But this is not the case; for
the science of astronomy does not aim at demonstrating them,
although it includes subjects that can be proved; e.g., it has been
proved that the path of the sun is inclined against the equator; this
cannot be doubted. But it has not yet been decided whether the
sphere of the sun is excentric or contains a revolving epicycle, and
the astronomer does not take notice of this uncertainty, for his
object is simply to find an hypothesis that would lead to a uniform
and circular motion of the stars without acceleration, retardation, or
change, and which is in its effects in accordance with observation.
He will, besides, endeavour to find such an hypothesis which would
require the least complicated motion and the least number of
spheres; he will therefore prefer an hypothesis which would explain
all the phenomena of the stars by means of three spheres to an
hypothesis which would require four spheres. From this reason we
adopt, in reference to the circuit of the sun, the theory of
excentricity, and reject the epicyclic revolution assumed by Ptolemy.
When we therefore perceive that all fixed stars move in the same
way uniformly, without the least difference, we conclude that they
are all in one sphere. It is, however, not impossible that the stars
should have each its own sphere, with a separate centre, and yet
move in the same way. If this theory be accepted, a number of
Intelligences must be assumed, equal to that of the stars, and
therefore Scripture says in reference to them, “Is there any number
of his armies?” (Job xxv. 3); for the Intelligences, the heavenly
bodies, and the natural forces, are called the armies of God.
Nevertheless the species of the stars can be numbered, and](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-22-320.jpg)
![therefore we would still be justified in counting the spheres of the
fixed stars collectively as one, just as the five spheres of the planets,
together with the numerous spheres they contain, are regarded by
us as one. Our object in adopting this number is, as you have
noticed, to divide the influences which we can trace in the Universe
according to their general character, without desiring to fix the
number of the Intelligences and the spheres. All we wish to point
out is this: in the first place, that the whole Creation is divided into
three parts, viz. (1) the pure Intelligences; (2) the bodies of the
spheres endowed with permanent forms—(the forms of these bodies
do not pass from one substratum to another, nor do their substrata
undergo any change whatever); and (3) the transient earthly beings,
all of which consist of the same substance. Furthermore, we desire
to show that the ruling power emanates from the Creator, and is
received by the Intelligences according to their order; from the
Intelligences part of the good and the light bestowed upon them is
communicated to the spheres, and the latter, being in possession of
the abundance obtained of the Intelligences, transmit forces and
properties unto the beings of this transient world. We must,
however, add that the part which benefits the part below it in the
order described does not exist for the sole purpose of producing that
benefit. For if this were the case it would lead to the paradox that
the higher, better, and nobler beings existed for the sake of beings
lower in rank, whilst in reality the object should be of greater
importance than the means applied for attaining it. No intelligent
person will admit that this is possible. The nature of the influence
which one part of the Creation exercises upon another must be
explained as follows: A thing perfect in a certain way is either
perfect [168]only in itself, without being able to communicate that
perfection to another being, or it is so perfect that it is capable of
imparting perfection to another being. A person may possess wealth
sufficient for his own wants without being able to spare anything for
another, or he may have wealth enough to benefit also other people,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-23-320.jpg)
![as foreign to our religion, just as uneducated persons find them
foreign to their own notions. But, in fact, it is not so.
Since we have repeatedly spoken of the influence emanating from
God and the Intelligences, we will now proceed to explain what is
the true meaning of this influence, and after that I will discuss the
theory of the Creation.
[Contents]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-25-320.jpg)
![CHAPTER XII
It is clear that whenever a thing is produced, an efficient cause must
exist for the production of the thing that has not existed previously.
This immediate efficient cause is either corporeal or incorporeal; if
corporeal, it is not the efficient cause on account of its corporeality,
but on account of its being an individual corporeal object, and
therefore by means of its form. I will speak of this subject later on.
The immediate efficient cause of a thing may again be the effect of
some cause, and so on, but not ad infinitum. The series of causes
for a certain product must necessarily conclude with a First Cause,
[169]which is the true cause of that product, and whose existence is
not due to another cause. The question remains, Why has this thing
been produced now and not long before, since the cause has always
been in existence? The answer is, that a certain relation between
cause and product has been absent, if the cause be corporeal; or,
that the substance has not been sufficiently prepared, if the cause
be incorporeal. All this is in accordance with the teachings of natural
science. We ignore for the present the question whether to assume
the Eternity of the Universe, or the Creatio ex nihilo. We do not
intend to discuss the question here.
In Physics it has been shown that a body in acting upon another
body must either directly be in contact with it, or indirectly through
the medium of other bodies. E.g., a body that has been heated has
been in contact with fire, or the air that surrounds the body has
been heated by the fire, and has communicated the heat to the
body; the immediate cause of the heat in this body is the corporeal
substance of the heated air. The magnet attracts iron from a
distance through a certain force communicated to the air round the
iron. The magnet does therefore not act at all distances, just as fire](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-26-320.jpg)
![corporeal and incorporeal beings. The reason why the action has not
taken place before must be sought in the circumstance that the
substance has not been prepared for the action of the abstract form.
[170]
It is now clear that the action of bodies upon each other, according
to their forms, prepares the substance for receiving the action of an
incorporeal being, or Form. The existence of actions of purely
incorporeal beings, in every case of change that does not originate
in the mere combination of elements, is now firmly established.
These actions do not depend on impact, or on a certain distance.
They are termed “influence” (or “emanation”), on account of their
similarity to a water-spring. The latter sends forth water in all
directions, has no peculiar side for receiving or spending its
contents; it springs forth on all sides, and continually waters both
neighbouring and distant places. In a similar manner incorporeal
beings, in receiving power and imparting it to others, are not limited
to a particular side, distance, or time. They act continually; and
whenever an object is sufficiently prepared, it receives the effect of
that continuous action, called “influence” (or “emanation”). God
being incorporeal, and everything being the work of Him as the
efficient cause, we say that the Universe has been created by the
Divine influence, and that all changes in the Universe emanate from
Him. In the same sense we say that He caused wisdom to emanate
from Him and to come upon the prophets. In all such cases we
merely wish to express that an incorporeal Being, whose action we
call “influence,” has produced a certain effect. The term “influence”
has been considered applicable to the Creator on account of the
similarity between His actions and those of a spring. There is no
better way of describing the action of an incorporeal being than by
this analogy; and no term can be found that would accurately
describe it. For it is as difficult to form an idea of that action as to
form an idea of the incorporeal being itself. As we imagine only](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-28-320.jpg)
![bodies or forces residing in bodies, so we only imagine actions
possible when the agent is near, at a certain distance, and on a
particular side. There are therefore persons who, on learning that
God is incorporeal, or that He does not approach the object of His
action, believe that He gives commands to angels, and that the
latter carry them out by approach or direct contact, as is the case
when we produce something. These persons thus imagine also the
angels as bodies. Some of them, further, believe that God commands
an action in words consisting, like ours, of letters and sound, and
that thereby the action is done. All this is the work of the
imagination, which is, in fact, identical with “evil inclination.” For all
our defects in speech or in character are either the direct or the
indirect work of imagination. This is not the subject of the present
chapter, in which we only intended to explain the term “influence” in
so far as it is applied to incorporeal beings, namely, to God and to
the Intelligences or angels. But the term is also applied to the forces
of the spheres in their effects upon the earth; and we speak of the
“influence” of the spheres, although the spheres are corporeal, and
the stars, being corporeal, only act at certain distances, i.e., at a
smaller or a greater distance from the centre, or at a definite
distance from each other, a circumstance which led to Astrology.
As to our assertion that Scripture applies the notion of “influence” to
God, compare “They have forsaken me, the fountain of living
waters” (Jer. ii. 13), i.e., the Divine influence that gives life or
existence, for the two are undoubtedly identical. Further, “For with
Thee is the fountain of life” (Ps. xxxvi. 10), i.e., the Divine influence
that gives existence. The [171]concluding words of this verse, “in Thy
light we see light,” express exactly what we said, namely, that by the
influence of the intellect which emanates from God we become wise,
by it we are guided and enabled to comprehend the Active Intellect.
Note this.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-29-320.jpg)
![[Contents]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-30-320.jpg)
![has a real existence or not; the reason for this uncertainty is to be
found in the circumstance that time is an accident of an accident.
Accidents which are directly connected with material bodies, e.g.,
colour and taste, are easily understood, and correct notions are
formed of them. There are, however, accidents which are connected
with other accidents, e.g., the splendour of colour, or the inclination
and the curvature of a line; of these it is very difficult to form a
correct notion, especially when the accident which forms the
substratum for the other accident is not constant but variable. Both
difficulties are present in the notion of time: it is an accident of
motion, which is itself an accident of a moving object; besides, it is
not a fixed property; on the contrary, its true and essential condition
is, not to remain in the same state for two consecutive moments.
This is the source of ignorance about the nature of time.
We consider time a thing created; it comes into existence in the
same manner as other accidents, and the substances which form the
substratum for the accidents. For this reason, viz., because time
belongs to the things created, it cannot be said that God produced
the Universe in the beginning. [172]Consider this well; for he who
does not understand it is unable to refute forcible objections raised
against the theory of Creatio ex nihilo. If you admit the existence of
time before the Creation, you will be compelled to accept the theory
of the Eternity of the Universe. For time is an accident and requires
a substratum. You will therefore have to assume that something
[beside God] existed before this Universe was created, an
assumption which it is our duty to oppose.
This is the first theory, and it is undoubtedly a fundamental principle
of the Law of our teacher Moses; it is next in importance to the
principle of God’s unity. Do not follow any other theory. Abraham,
our father, was the first that taught it, after he had established it by
philosophical research. He proclaimed, therefore, “the name of the](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-32-320.jpg)
![from nothing, and may cease to exist, although they cannot be
reduced to nothing. They are transient in the same manner as the
individuals among living beings which are produced from some
existing substance, and are again reduced to some substance that
remains in existence. The process of genesis and destruction is, in
the case of the heavens, the same as in that of earthly beings.
The followers of this theory are divided into different schools, whose
opinions and principles it is useless to discuss here; but what I have
mentioned is common to all of them. Plato holds the same opinion.
Aristotle says in [173]his Physics, that according to Plato the heavens
are transient. This view is also stated in Plato’s Timæus. His opinion,
however, does not agree with our belief; only superficial and careless
persons wrongly assume that Plato has the same belief as we have.
For whilst we hold that the heavens have been created from
absolutely nothing, Plato believes that they have been formed out of
something.—This is the second theory.
Third Theory.—viz., that of Aristotle, his followers, and
commentators. Aristotle maintains, like the adherents of the second
theory, that a corporeal object cannot be produced without a
corporeal substance. He goes, however, farther, and contends that
the heavens are indestructible. For he holds that the Universe in its
totality has never been different, nor will it ever change: the
heavens, which form the permanent element in the Universe, and
are not subject to genesis and destruction, have always been so;
time and motion are eternal, permanent, and have neither beginning
nor end; the sublunary world, which includes the transient elements,
has always been the same, because the materia prima is itself
eternal, and merely combines successively with different forms;
when one form is removed, another is assumed. This whole
arrangement, therefore, both above and here below, is never
disturbed or interrupted, and nothing is produced contrary to the](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-34-320.jpg)
![laws or the ordinary course of Nature. He further says—though not
in the same terms—that he considers it impossible for God to
change His will or conceive a new desire; that God produced this
Universe in its totality by His will, but not from nothing. Aristotle
finds it as impossible to assume that God changes His will or
conceives a new desire, as to believe that He is non-existing, or that
His essence is changeable. Hence it follows that this Universe has
always been the same in the past, and will be the same eternally.
This is a full account of the opinions of those who consider that the
existence of God, the First Cause of the Universe, has been
established by proof. But it would be quite useless to mention the
opinions of those who do not recognize the existence of God, but
believe that the existing state of things is the result of accidental
combination and separation of the elements, and that the Universe
has no Ruler or Governor. Such is the theory of Epicurus and his
school, and similar philosophers, as stated by Alexander
[Aphrodisiensis]; it would be superfluous to repeat their views, since
the existence of God has been demonstrated whilst their theory is
built upon a basis proved to be untenable. It is likewise useless to
prove the correctness of the followers of the second theory in
asserting that the heavens are transient, because they at the same
time believe in the Eternity of the Universe, and so long as this
theory is adopted, it makes no difference to us whether it is believed
that the heavens are transient, and that only their substance is
eternal, or the heavens are held to be indestructible, in accordance
with the view of Aristotle. All who follow the Law of Moses, our
Teacher, and Abraham, our Father, and all who adopt similar
theories, assume that nothing is eternal except God, and that the
theory of Creatio ex nihilo includes nothing that is impossible, whilst
some thinkers even regard it as an established truth.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-35-320.jpg)
![After having described the different theories, I will now proceed to
show how Aristotle proved his theory, and what induced him to
adopt it. [174]
[Contents]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-36-320.jpg)
![as coming into existence is nothing but receiving Form. But we mean
by “First Substance” a formless substance; it can therefore not have
come into existence from another substance, and must be without
beginning and without end; hence it is concluded that the Universe
is eternal.
Third Method.—The substance of the spheres contains no opposite
elements; for circular motion includes no such opposite directions as
are found in rectilinear motion. Whatever is destroyed, owes its
destruction to the opposite elements it contains. The spheres contain
no opposite elements; they are therefore indestructible, and because
they are indestructible they are also without beginning. Aristotle thus
assumes the axiom that everything that has had a beginning is
destructible, and that everything destructible has had a beginning;
that things without beginning are indestructible, and indestructible
things are without beginning. Hence follows the Eternity of the
Universe.
Fourth Method.—The actual production of a thing is preceded in time
by its possibility. The actual change of a thing is likewise preceded in
time by its possibility. From this proposition Aristotle derives the
eternity of the circular motion of the spheres. The Aristotelians in
more recent time employ this proposition in demonstrating the
Eternity of the Universe. They argue thus: When the Universe did
not yet exist, its existence was either possible or necessary, or
impossible. If it was necessary, the Universe could never have been
non-existing; if impossible, the Universe could never have been in
existence; if possible, the question arises, What was the substratum
[175]of that possibility? for there must be in existence something of
which that possibility can be predicated. This is a forcible argument
in favour of the Eternity of the Universe. Some of the later schools of
the Mutakallemim imagined that they could confute this argument by
objecting that the possibility rests with the agent, and not with the](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-38-320.jpg)
![another. He is, on the contrary, always active in the same manner as
He is always in actual existence.
Seventh Method.—The actions of God are perfect; they are in no
way defective, nor do they contain anything useless or superfluous.
In similar terms Aristotle frequently praises Him, when he says that
Nature is wise and does nothing in vain, but makes everything as
perfect as possible. The philosophers therefore contend that this
existing Universe is so perfect that it cannot be improved, and must
be permanent; for it is the result of God’s wisdom, which is not only
always present in His essence, but is identical with it.
All arguments in favour of the Eternity of the Universe are based on
the above methods, and can be traced to one or other of them. The
following objection is also raised against Creatio ex nihilo: How could
God ever have been inactive without producing or creating anything
in the infinite past? How could He have passed the long infinite
period which preceded the Creation without producing anything, so
as to commence, as it were, only yesterday, the Creation of the
Universe? For even if you said, e.g., that God created previously as
many successive worlds as the outermost sphere could contain
grains of mustard, and that each of these worlds existed as
[176]many years: considering the infinite existence of God, it would
be the same as if He had only yesterday commenced the Creation.
For when we once admit the beginning of the existence of things
after their non-existence, it makes no difference whether thousands
of centuries have passed since the beginning, or only a short time.
Those who defend the Eternity of the Universe find both
assumptions equally improbable.
Eighth Method.—The following method is based on the circumstance
that the theory implies a belief which is so common to all peoples
and ages, and so universal, that it appears to express a real fact and](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-40-320.jpg)
![not merely an hypothesis. Aristotle says that all people have
evidently believed in the permanency and stability of the heavens;
and thinking that these were eternal, they declared them to be the
habitation of God and of the spiritual beings or angels. By thus
attributing the heavens to God, they expressed their belief that the
heavens are indestructible. Several other arguments of the same
kind are employed by Aristotle in treating of this subject in order to
support the results of his philosophical speculation by common
sense.
[Contents]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-41-320.jpg)
![the heavens, and see whether they are the product of something or
not, destructible or not.” After this statement of the problem, he
proceeds to cite the views of those who hold that the heavens have
had a beginning, and continues thus: “By doing this, our theory will
be most plausible and acceptable in the [177]opinion of profound
thinkers; and it will be the more so, when, as we propose, the
arguments of our opponents are first heard. For if we were to state
our opinion and our arguments without mentioning those of our
opponents, our words would be received less favourably. He who
desires to be just must not show himself hostile to his opponent; he
must have sympathy with him, and readily acknowledge any truth
contained in his words; he must admit the correctness of such of his
opponent’s arguments as he would admit if they were in his own
favour.” This is the contents of the words of Aristotle. Now, I ask
you, men of intelligence, can we have any complaint against him
after this frank statement? Or can any one now imagine that a real
proof has been given for the Eternity of the Universe? Or can
Aristotle, or any one else, believe that a theorem, though fully
proved, would not be acceptable unless the arguments of the
opponents were fully refuted? We must also take into consideration
that Aristotle describes this theory as his opinion, and his proofs as
arguments. Is Aristotle ignorant of the difference between argument
and proof? between opinions, which may be received more or less
favourably, and truths capable of demonstration? or would rhetorical
appeal to the impartiality of opponents have been required for the
support of his theory if a real proof had been given? Certainly not.
Aristotle only desires to show that his theory is better than those of
his opponents, who hold that philosophical speculation leads to the
conviction that the heavens are transient, but have never been
entirely without existence; or that the heavens have had a
beginning, but are indestructible; or to defend any of the other
views mentioned by him. In this he is undoubtedly right; for his
opinion is nearer the truth than theirs, so far as a proof can be taken](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-43-320.jpg)
![from the nature of existing things; we differ from him, as will be
explained. Passion, that exercises great influence in most of the
different sects, must have influenced even the philosophers who
wished to affirm that Aristotle demonstrated his theory by proof.
Perhaps they really believe it, and assume that Aristotle himself was
not aware of it, as it was only discovered after his death! My
conviction is, that what Aristotle says on the Eternity of the Universe,
the cause of the variety in the motion of the spheres and the order
of the Intelligences, cannot be proved, and that Aristotle never
intended to prove these things. I agree with him that the ways of
proving this theory have their gates closed before us, there being no
foundation on which to build up the proof. His words on this subject
are well known. He says, “There are things concerning which we are
unable to reason, or which we find too high for us; to say why these
things have a certain property is as difficult as to decide whether the
Universe is eternal or not.” So far Aristotle. The interpretation which
Abu-nasr offers of this parallel is well known. He denies that Aristotle
had any doubt about the Eternity of the Universe, and is very severe
upon Galen, who maintains that this theory is still doubtful, and that
no proof has been offered. According to Abu-nasr, it is clear and
demonstrable by proof that the heavens are eternal, but all that is
enclosed within the heavens is transient. We hold, that by none of
the methods mentioned in this chapter can a theory be established,
refuted, or shaken.
We have mentioned these things only because we know that the
majority of those who consider themselves wise, although they know
nothing of science, accept the theory of the Eternity of the Universe
on the authority [178]of famous scholars. They reject the words of
the prophets, because the latter do not employ any scientific method
by which only a few persons would be instructed who are
intellectually well prepared, but simply communicate the truth as
received by Divine inspiration.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-44-320.jpg)
![In the chapters which follow we will expound the theory of the
Creation in accordance with the teaching of Scripture.
[Contents]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-45-320.jpg)
![more acceptable than that of the Eternity of the Universe; and
although our theory includes points open to criticism, I will show
that there are much stronger reasons for the rejection of the theory
of our opponents.
I will now proceed to expound the method by which the proofs given
for the Eternity of the Universe can be refuted.
[Contents]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-47-320.jpg)
![CHAPTER XVII
Everything produced comes into existence from non-existence; even
when the substance of a thing has been in existence, and has only
changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone through the
process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final
state, has now different properties from those which it possessed at
the commencement of the transition from potentiality to reality, or
before that time. Take, e.g., the human ovum as [179]contained in
the female’s blood when still included in its vessels; its nature is
different from what it was in the moment of conception, when it is
met by the semen of the male and begins to develop; the properties
of the semen in that moment are different from the properties of the
living being after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite
impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after
having passed through all stages of its development, what the
condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process
commenced; nor does the condition of a thing in this moment show
what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and
attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its
properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion;
you will reject evident truths and admit false opinions. Let us
assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had
after his birth been nursed by his mother only a few months; the
mother then died, and the father alone brought him up in a lonely
island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge.
Suppose this man has never seen a woman or any female being; he
asks some person how man has come into existence, and how he
has developed, and receives the following answer: “Man begins his
existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in
the womb of a female, which has a certain form. While in the womb](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-48-320.jpg)
![and has developed in a [180]certain manner, and that it has been
created in a certain order. The Aristotelians oppose us, and found
their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe
possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the
existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means
the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of
their production; and we hold that these properties themselves have
come into existence from absolute non-existence. Their arguments
are therefore no objection whatever to our theory; they have
demonstrative force only against those who hold that the nature of
things as at present in existence proves the Creation. But this is not
my opinion.
I will now return to our theme, viz., to the description of the
principal proofs of Aristotle, and show that they prove nothing
whatever against us, since we hold that God brought the entire
Universe into existence from absolute non-existence, and that He
caused it to develop into the present state. Aristotle says that the
materia prima is eternal, and by referring to the properties of
transient beings he attempts to prove this statement, and to show
that the materia prima could not possibly have been produced. He is
right; we do not maintain that the materia prima has been produced
in the same manner as man is produced from the ovum, and that it
can be destroyed in the same manner as man is reduced to dust.
But we believe that God created it from nothing, and that since its
creation it has its own properties, viz., that all things are produced of
it and again reduced to it, when they cease to exist; that it does not
exist without Form; and that it is the source of all genesis and
destruction. Its genesis is not like that of the things produced from
it, nor its destruction like theirs; for it has been created from
nothing, and if it should please the Creator, He might reduce it to
absolutely nothing. The same applies to motion. Aristotle founds
some of his proofs on the fact that motion is not subject to genesis](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/95418-241217211750-56b8e9d6/85/Instant-Access-to-Go-Building-Web-Applications-1st-Edition-Nathan-Kozyra-Mat-Ryer-ebook-Full-Chapters-50-320.jpg)
Instant Access to Go Building Web Applications 1st Edition Nathan Kozyra Mat Ryer ebook Full Chapters
- 1. Get ebook downloads in full at ebookmeta.com Go Building Web Applications 1st Edition Nathan Kozyra Mat Ryer https://ebookmeta.com/product/go-building-web- applications-1st-edition-nathan-kozyra-mat-ryer/ OR CLICK BUTTON DOWNLOAD NOW Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookmeta.com
- 2. Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that you can download immediately if you are interested. Let s Go Further Advanced patterns for building APIs and web applications in Go Alex Edwards https://ebookmeta.com/product/let-s-go-further-advanced-patterns-for- building-apis-and-web-applications-in-go-alex-edwards/ ebookmeta.com Let s Go Learn to build professional web applications with Go 2nd Edition A. Edwards https://ebookmeta.com/product/let-s-go-learn-to-build-professional- web-applications-with-go-2nd-edition-a-edwards/ ebookmeta.com Building Progressive Web Applications with Vue.js 1st Edition Carlos Rojas https://ebookmeta.com/product/building-progressive-web-applications- with-vue-js-1st-edition-carlos-rojas/ ebookmeta.com Journeys in Narrative Inquiry The Selected Works of D Jean Clandinin D Jean Clandinin https://ebookmeta.com/product/journeys-in-narrative-inquiry-the- selected-works-of-d-jean-clandinin-d-jean-clandinin/ ebookmeta.com
- 3. She Is a Haunting 1st Edition Trang Thanh Tran https://ebookmeta.com/product/she-is-a-haunting-1st-edition-trang- thanh-tran-2/ ebookmeta.com Short Stories Eureka Model Narrative Essays for Today s Secondary School Students 1st Edition Diana Tham https://ebookmeta.com/product/short-stories-eureka-model-narrative- essays-for-today-s-secondary-school-students-1st-edition-diana-tham/ ebookmeta.com Landmark Cases in Succession Law 1st Edition Brian Sloan https://ebookmeta.com/product/landmark-cases-in-succession-law-1st- edition-brian-sloan/ ebookmeta.com A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax 2nd Edition Bill T Arnold John H Choi https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-guide-to-biblical-hebrew-syntax-2nd- edition-bill-t-arnold-john-h-choi/ ebookmeta.com The Hank Show: How a House-Painting, Drug-Running DEA Informant Built the Machine That Rules Our Lives. 1st Edition Mckenzie Funk. https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-hank-show-how-a-house-painting-drug- running-dea-informant-built-the-machine-that-rules-our-lives-1st- edition-mckenzie-funk/ ebookmeta.com
- 4. Extreme Privacy: What It Takes to Disappear 3rd Edition Michael Bazzell https://ebookmeta.com/product/extreme-privacy-what-it-takes-to- disappear-3rd-edition-michael-bazzell/ ebookmeta.com
- 6. Table of Contents Go: Building Web Applications Go: Building Web Applications Credits Preface What this learning path covers What you need for this learning path Who this learning path is for Reader feedback Customer support Downloading the example code Errata Piracy Questions 1. Module 1 1. Introducing and Setting Up Go Installing Go Structuring a project Code conventions Importing packages Handling private repositories Dealing with versioning Introducing the net package Hello, Web Summary 2. Serving and Routing Serving files directly Basic routing Using more complex routing with Gorilla Redirecting requests Serving basic errors Summary 3. Connecting to Data Connecting to a database
- 7. Creating a MySQL database Using GUID for prettier URLs Handling 404s Summary 4. Using Templates Introducing templates, context, and visibility HTML templates and text templates Displaying variables and security Using logic and control structures Summary 5. Frontend Integration with RESTful APIs Setting up the basic API endpoint RESTful architecture and best practices Creating our first API endpoint Implementing security Creating data with POST Modifying data with PUT Summary 6. Sessions and Cookies Setting cookies Capturing user information Creating users Enabling sessions Letting users register Letting users log in Initiating a server-side session Creating a store Utilizing flash messages Summary 7. Microservices and Communication Introducing the microservice approach Pros and cons of utilizing microservices Understanding the heart of microservices Communicating between microservices Putting a message on the wire Reading from another service Summary
- 8. 8. Logging and Testing Introducing logging in Go Logging to IO Multiple loggers Formatting your output Using panics and fatal errors Introducing testing in Go Summary 9. Security HTTPS everywhere – implementing TLS Preventing SQL injection Protecting against XSS Preventing cross-site request forgery (CSRF) Securing cookies Using the secure middleware Summary 10. Caching, Proxies and Improved Performance Identifying bottlenecks Implementing reverse proxies Implementing caching strategies Using Least Recently Used Caching by file Caching in memory Implementing HTTP/2 Summary 2. Module 2 1. Chat Application with Web Sockets A simple web server Templates Doing things once Using your own handlers Properly building and executing Go programs Modeling a chat room and clients on the server Modeling the client Modeling a room Concurrency programming using idiomatic Go Turning a room into an HTTP handler
- 9. Use helper functions to remove complexity Creating and using rooms Building an HTML and JavaScript chat client Getting more out of templates Tracing code to get a look under the hood Writing a package using TDD Interfaces Unit tests Red-green testing Implementing the interface Unexported types being returned to users Using our new trace package Making tracing optional Clean package APIs Summary 2. Adding Authentication Handlers all the way down Making a pretty social sign-in page Endpoints with dynamic paths OAuth2 Open source OAuth2 packages Tell the authentication providers about your app Implementing external logging in Logging in Handling the response from the provider Presenting the user data Augmenting messages with additional data Summary 3. Three Ways to Implement Profile Pictures Avatars from the authentication server Getting the avatar URL Transmitting the avatar URL Adding the avatar to the user interface Logging out Making things prettier Implementing Gravatar Abstracting the avatar URL process
- 10. The authentication service and avatar's implementation Using an implementation Gravatar implementation Uploading an avatar picture User identification An upload form Handling the upload Serving the images The Avatar implementation for local files Supporting different file types Refactoring and optimizing our code Replacing concrete types with interfaces Changing interfaces in a test-driven way Fixing existing implementations Global variables versus fields Implementing our new design Tidying up and testing Combining all three implementations Summary 4. Command-line Tools to Find Domain Names Pipe design for command-line tools Five simple programs Sprinkle Exercise – configurable transformations Domainify Exercise – making top-level domains configurable Coolify Synonyms Using environment variables for configuration Consuming a web API Getting domain suggestions Available Composing all five programs One program to rule them all Summary 5. Building Distributed Systems and Working with Flexible Data System design
- 11. Database design Installing the environment NSQ NSQ driver for Go MongoDB MongoDB driver for Go Starting the environment Votes from Twitter Authorization with Twitter Extracting the connection Reading environment variables Reading from MongoDB Reading from Twitter Signal channels Publishing to NSQ Gracefully starting and stopping Testing Counting votes Connecting to the database Consuming messages in NSQ Keeping the database updated Responding to Ctrl + C Running our solution Summary 6. Exposing Data and Functionality through a RESTful Data Web Service API RESTful API design Sharing data between handlers Wrapping handler functions API key Database session Per request variables Cross-browser resource sharing Responding Understanding the request A simple main function to serve our API Using handler function wrappers
- 12. Handling endpoints Using tags to add metadata to structs Many operations with a single handler Reading polls Creating a poll Deleting a poll CORS support Testing our API using curl A web client that consumes the API An index page showing a list of polls A page to create a new poll A page to show details of the poll Running the solution Summary 7. Random Recommendations Web Service Project overview Project design specifics Representing data in code Public views of Go structs Generating random recommendations Google Places API key Enumerators in Go Test-driven enumerator Querying the Google Places API Building recommendations Handlers that use query parameters CORS Testing our API Web application Summary 8. Filesystem Backup Solution design Project structure Backup package Obvious interfaces? Implementing ZIP Has the filesystem changed?
- 13. Checking for changes and initiating a backup Hardcoding is OK for a short while The user command-line tool Persisting small data Parsing arguments Listing the paths String representations for your own types Adding paths Removing paths Using our new tool The daemon backup tool Duplicated structures Caching data Infinite loops Updating filedb records Testing our solution Summary 3. Module 3 1. An Introduction to Concurrency in Go Introducing goroutines A patient goroutine Implementing the defer control mechanism Using Go's scheduler Using system variables Understanding goroutines versus coroutines Implementing channels Channel-based sorting at the letter capitalization factory Cleaning up our goroutines Buffered or unbuffered channels Using the select statement Closures and goroutines Building a web spider using goroutines and channels Summary 2. Understanding the Concurrency Model Understanding the working of goroutines Synchronous versus asynchronous goroutines Designing the web server plan
- 14. Visualizing concurrency RSS in action An RSS reader with self diagnostics Imposing a timeout A little bit about CSP The dining philosophers problem Go and the actor model Object orientation Demonstrating simple polymorphism in Go Using concurrency Managing threads Using sync and mutexes to lock data Summary 3. Developing a Concurrent Strategy Applying efficiency in complex concurrency Identifying race conditions with race detection Using mutual exclusions Exploring timeouts Importance of consistency Synchronizing our concurrent operations The project – multiuser appointment calendar Visualizing a concurrent pattern Developing our server requirements Web server The Gorilla toolkit Using templates Time Endpoints Custom structs A multiuser Appointments Calendar A note on style A note on immutability Summary 4. Data Integrity in an Application Getting deeper with mutexes and sync The cost of goroutines Working with files
- 15. Getting low – implementing C Touching memory in cgo The structure of cgo The other way around Getting even lower – assembly in Go Distributed Go Some common consistency models Distributed shared memory First-in-first-out – PRAM Looking at the master-slave model The producer-consumer problem Looking at the leader-follower model Atomic consistency / mutual exclusion Release consistency Using memcached Circuit Summary 5. Locks, Blocks, and Better Channels Understanding blocking methods in Go Blocking method 1 – a listening, waiting channel Sending more data types via channels Creating a function channel Using an interface channel Using structs, interfaces, and more complex channels The net package – a chat server with interfaced channels Handling direct messages Examining our client Blocking method 2 – the select statement in a loop Cleaning up goroutines Blocking method 3 – network connections and reads Creating channels of channels Pprof – yet another awesome tool Handling deadlocks and errors Summary 6. C10K – A Non-blocking Web Server in Go Attacking the C10K problem Failing of servers at 10,000 concurrent connections
- 16. Using concurrency to attack C10K Taking another approach Building our C10K web server Benchmarking against a blocking web server Handling requests Routing requests Serving pages Parsing our template External dependencies Connecting to MySQL Multithreading and leveraging multiple cores Exploring our web server Timing out and moving on Summary 7. Performance and Scalability High performance in Go Getting deeper into pprof Parallelism's and concurrency's impact on I/O pprof Using the App Engine Distributed Go Types of topologies Type 1 – star Type 2 – mesh The Publish and Subscribe model Serialized data Remote code execution Other topologies Message Passing Interface Some helpful libraries Nitro profiler Heka GoFlow Memory preservation Garbage collection in Go Summary 8. Concurrent Application Architecture Designing our concurrent application
- 17. Identifying our requirements Using NoSQL as a data store in Go MongoDB Redis Tiedot CouchDB Cassandra Couchbase Setting up our data store Monitoring filesystem changes Managing logfiles Handling configuration files Detecting file changes Sending changes to clients Checking records against Couchbase Backing up our files Designing our web interface Reverting a file's history – command line Using Go in daemons and as a service Checking the health of our server Summary 9. Logging and Testing Concurrency in Go Handling errors and logging Breaking out goroutine logs Using the LiteIDE for richer and easier debugging Sending errors to screen Logging errors to file Logging errors to memory Using the log4go package for robust logging Panicking Recovering Logging our panics Catching stack traces with concurrent code Using the runtime package for granular stack traces Summary 10. Advanced Concurrency and Best Practices Going beyond the basics with channels
- 18. Building workers Implementing nil channel blocks Using nil channels Implementing more granular control over goroutines with tomb Timing out with channels Building a load balancer with concurrent patterns Choosing unidirectional and bidirectional channels Using receive-only or send-only channels Using an indeterminate channel type Using Go with unit testing GoCheck Ginkgo and Gomega Using Google App Engine Utilizing best practices Structuring your code Documenting your code Making your code available via go get Keeping concurrency out of your packages Summary A. Bibliography Index
- 19. Go: Building Web Applications
- 20. Other documents randomly have different content
- 21. prefer to swim in the waters of their ignorance, and to “go down very low,” need not exert the body or heart; they need only cease to move, and they will go down by the law of nature. Note and consider well all we have said. [Contents]
- 22. CHAPTER XI When a simple mathematician reads and studies these astronomical discussions, [167]he believes that the form and the number of the spheres are facts established by proof. But this is not the case; for the science of astronomy does not aim at demonstrating them, although it includes subjects that can be proved; e.g., it has been proved that the path of the sun is inclined against the equator; this cannot be doubted. But it has not yet been decided whether the sphere of the sun is excentric or contains a revolving epicycle, and the astronomer does not take notice of this uncertainty, for his object is simply to find an hypothesis that would lead to a uniform and circular motion of the stars without acceleration, retardation, or change, and which is in its effects in accordance with observation. He will, besides, endeavour to find such an hypothesis which would require the least complicated motion and the least number of spheres; he will therefore prefer an hypothesis which would explain all the phenomena of the stars by means of three spheres to an hypothesis which would require four spheres. From this reason we adopt, in reference to the circuit of the sun, the theory of excentricity, and reject the epicyclic revolution assumed by Ptolemy. When we therefore perceive that all fixed stars move in the same way uniformly, without the least difference, we conclude that they are all in one sphere. It is, however, not impossible that the stars should have each its own sphere, with a separate centre, and yet move in the same way. If this theory be accepted, a number of Intelligences must be assumed, equal to that of the stars, and therefore Scripture says in reference to them, “Is there any number of his armies?” (Job xxv. 3); for the Intelligences, the heavenly bodies, and the natural forces, are called the armies of God. Nevertheless the species of the stars can be numbered, and
- 23. therefore we would still be justified in counting the spheres of the fixed stars collectively as one, just as the five spheres of the planets, together with the numerous spheres they contain, are regarded by us as one. Our object in adopting this number is, as you have noticed, to divide the influences which we can trace in the Universe according to their general character, without desiring to fix the number of the Intelligences and the spheres. All we wish to point out is this: in the first place, that the whole Creation is divided into three parts, viz. (1) the pure Intelligences; (2) the bodies of the spheres endowed with permanent forms—(the forms of these bodies do not pass from one substratum to another, nor do their substrata undergo any change whatever); and (3) the transient earthly beings, all of which consist of the same substance. Furthermore, we desire to show that the ruling power emanates from the Creator, and is received by the Intelligences according to their order; from the Intelligences part of the good and the light bestowed upon them is communicated to the spheres, and the latter, being in possession of the abundance obtained of the Intelligences, transmit forces and properties unto the beings of this transient world. We must, however, add that the part which benefits the part below it in the order described does not exist for the sole purpose of producing that benefit. For if this were the case it would lead to the paradox that the higher, better, and nobler beings existed for the sake of beings lower in rank, whilst in reality the object should be of greater importance than the means applied for attaining it. No intelligent person will admit that this is possible. The nature of the influence which one part of the Creation exercises upon another must be explained as follows: A thing perfect in a certain way is either perfect [168]only in itself, without being able to communicate that perfection to another being, or it is so perfect that it is capable of imparting perfection to another being. A person may possess wealth sufficient for his own wants without being able to spare anything for another, or he may have wealth enough to benefit also other people,
- 24. or even to enrich them to such an extent as would enable them to give part of their property to others. In the same manner the creative act of the Almighty in giving existence to pure Intelligences endows the first of them with the power of giving existence to another, and so on, down to the Active Intellect, the lowest of the purely spiritual beings. Besides producing other Intelligences, each Intelligence gives existence to one of the spheres, from the highest down to the lowest, which is the sphere of the moon. After the latter follows this transient world, i.e., the materia prima, and all that has been formed of it. In this manner the elements receive certain properties from each sphere, and a succession of genesis and destruction is produced. We have already mentioned that these theories are not opposed to anything taught by our Prophets or by our Sages. Our nation is wise and perfect, as has been declared by the Most High, through Moses, who made us perfect: “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people” (Deut. iv. 6). But when wicked barbarians have deprived us of our possessions, put an end to our science and literature, and killed our wise men, we have become ignorant; this has been foretold by the prophets, when they pronounced the punishment for our sins: “The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid” (Isa. xxix. 14). We are mixed up with other nations; we have learnt their opinions, and followed their ways and acts. The Psalmist, deploring this imitation of the actions of other nations, says, “They were mingled among the nations, and learned their works” (Ps. cvi. 35). Isaiah likewise complains that the Israelites adopted the opinions of their neighbours, and says, “And they please themselves in the children of strangers” (Isa. ii. 6); or, according to the Aramaic version of Jonathan, son of Uzziel, “And they walk in the ways of the nations.” Having been brought up among persons untrained in philosophy, we are inclined to consider these philosophical opinions
- 25. as foreign to our religion, just as uneducated persons find them foreign to their own notions. But, in fact, it is not so. Since we have repeatedly spoken of the influence emanating from God and the Intelligences, we will now proceed to explain what is the true meaning of this influence, and after that I will discuss the theory of the Creation. [Contents]
- 26. CHAPTER XII It is clear that whenever a thing is produced, an efficient cause must exist for the production of the thing that has not existed previously. This immediate efficient cause is either corporeal or incorporeal; if corporeal, it is not the efficient cause on account of its corporeality, but on account of its being an individual corporeal object, and therefore by means of its form. I will speak of this subject later on. The immediate efficient cause of a thing may again be the effect of some cause, and so on, but not ad infinitum. The series of causes for a certain product must necessarily conclude with a First Cause, [169]which is the true cause of that product, and whose existence is not due to another cause. The question remains, Why has this thing been produced now and not long before, since the cause has always been in existence? The answer is, that a certain relation between cause and product has been absent, if the cause be corporeal; or, that the substance has not been sufficiently prepared, if the cause be incorporeal. All this is in accordance with the teachings of natural science. We ignore for the present the question whether to assume the Eternity of the Universe, or the Creatio ex nihilo. We do not intend to discuss the question here. In Physics it has been shown that a body in acting upon another body must either directly be in contact with it, or indirectly through the medium of other bodies. E.g., a body that has been heated has been in contact with fire, or the air that surrounds the body has been heated by the fire, and has communicated the heat to the body; the immediate cause of the heat in this body is the corporeal substance of the heated air. The magnet attracts iron from a distance through a certain force communicated to the air round the iron. The magnet does therefore not act at all distances, just as fire
- 27. does not act at every distance, but only as long as the air between the fire and the object is affected by the fire. When the air is no longer affected by the fire which is under a piece of wax, the latter does not melt. The same is the case with magnetism. When an object that has previously not been warm has now become warm, the cause of its heat must now have been created; either some fire has been produced, or the distance of the fire from the object has been changed, and the altered relation between the fire and the object is the cause now created. In a similar manner we find the causes of all changes in the Universe to be changes in the combination of the elements that act upon each other when one body approaches another or separates from it. There are, however, changes which are not connected with the combination of the elements, but concern only the forms of the things; they require likewise an efficient cause; there must exist a force that produces the various forms. This cause is incorporeal, for that which produces form must itself be abstract form, as has been shown in its proper place. I have also indicated the proof of this theorem in previous chapters. The following may, in addition, serve to illustrate it: All combinations of the elements are subject to increase and decrease, and this change takes place gradually. It is different with forms; they do not change gradually, and are therefore without motion; they appear and disappear instantaneously, and are consequently not the result of the combination of corporeal elements. This combination merely prepares matter for receiving a certain form. The efficient cause which produces the form is indivisible, because it is of the same kind as the thing produced. Hence it may be concluded that the agent that has produced a certain form, or given it to a certain substance, must itself be an abstract form. The action of this incorporeal agent cannot depend on a certain relation to the corporeal product; being incorporeal, it cannot approach a body, or recede from it; nor can a body approach the incorporeal agent, or recede from it, because there is no relation of distance between
- 28. corporeal and incorporeal beings. The reason why the action has not taken place before must be sought in the circumstance that the substance has not been prepared for the action of the abstract form. [170] It is now clear that the action of bodies upon each other, according to their forms, prepares the substance for receiving the action of an incorporeal being, or Form. The existence of actions of purely incorporeal beings, in every case of change that does not originate in the mere combination of elements, is now firmly established. These actions do not depend on impact, or on a certain distance. They are termed “influence” (or “emanation”), on account of their similarity to a water-spring. The latter sends forth water in all directions, has no peculiar side for receiving or spending its contents; it springs forth on all sides, and continually waters both neighbouring and distant places. In a similar manner incorporeal beings, in receiving power and imparting it to others, are not limited to a particular side, distance, or time. They act continually; and whenever an object is sufficiently prepared, it receives the effect of that continuous action, called “influence” (or “emanation”). God being incorporeal, and everything being the work of Him as the efficient cause, we say that the Universe has been created by the Divine influence, and that all changes in the Universe emanate from Him. In the same sense we say that He caused wisdom to emanate from Him and to come upon the prophets. In all such cases we merely wish to express that an incorporeal Being, whose action we call “influence,” has produced a certain effect. The term “influence” has been considered applicable to the Creator on account of the similarity between His actions and those of a spring. There is no better way of describing the action of an incorporeal being than by this analogy; and no term can be found that would accurately describe it. For it is as difficult to form an idea of that action as to form an idea of the incorporeal being itself. As we imagine only
- 29. bodies or forces residing in bodies, so we only imagine actions possible when the agent is near, at a certain distance, and on a particular side. There are therefore persons who, on learning that God is incorporeal, or that He does not approach the object of His action, believe that He gives commands to angels, and that the latter carry them out by approach or direct contact, as is the case when we produce something. These persons thus imagine also the angels as bodies. Some of them, further, believe that God commands an action in words consisting, like ours, of letters and sound, and that thereby the action is done. All this is the work of the imagination, which is, in fact, identical with “evil inclination.” For all our defects in speech or in character are either the direct or the indirect work of imagination. This is not the subject of the present chapter, in which we only intended to explain the term “influence” in so far as it is applied to incorporeal beings, namely, to God and to the Intelligences or angels. But the term is also applied to the forces of the spheres in their effects upon the earth; and we speak of the “influence” of the spheres, although the spheres are corporeal, and the stars, being corporeal, only act at certain distances, i.e., at a smaller or a greater distance from the centre, or at a definite distance from each other, a circumstance which led to Astrology. As to our assertion that Scripture applies the notion of “influence” to God, compare “They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters” (Jer. ii. 13), i.e., the Divine influence that gives life or existence, for the two are undoubtedly identical. Further, “For with Thee is the fountain of life” (Ps. xxxvi. 10), i.e., the Divine influence that gives existence. The [171]concluding words of this verse, “in Thy light we see light,” express exactly what we said, namely, that by the influence of the intellect which emanates from God we become wise, by it we are guided and enabled to comprehend the Active Intellect. Note this.
- 30. [Contents]
- 31. CHAPTER XIII Among those who believe in the existence of God, there are found three different theories as regards the question whether the Universe is eternal or not. First Theory.—Those who follow the Law of Moses, our Teacher, hold that the whole Universe, i.e., everything except God, has been brought by Him into existence out of non-existence. In the beginning God alone existed, and nothing else; neither angels, nor spheres, nor the things that are contained within the spheres existed. He then produced from nothing all existing things such as they are, by His will and desire. Even time itself is among the things created; for time depends on motion, i.e., on an accident in things which move, and the things upon whose motion time depends are themselves created beings, which have passed from non-existence into existence. We say that God existed before the creation of the Universe, although the verb existed appears to imply the notion of time; we also believe that He existed an infinite space of time before the Universe was created; but in these cases we do not mean time in its true sense. We only use the term to signify something analogous or similar to time. For time is undoubtedly an accident, and, according to our opinion, one of the created accidents, like blackness and whiteness; it is not a quality, but an accident connected with motion. This must be clear to all who understand what Aristotle has said on time and its real existence. The following remark does not form an essential part of our present research; it will nevertheless be found useful in the course of this discussion. Many scholars do not know what time really is, and men like Galen were so perplexed about it that they asked whether time
- 32. has a real existence or not; the reason for this uncertainty is to be found in the circumstance that time is an accident of an accident. Accidents which are directly connected with material bodies, e.g., colour and taste, are easily understood, and correct notions are formed of them. There are, however, accidents which are connected with other accidents, e.g., the splendour of colour, or the inclination and the curvature of a line; of these it is very difficult to form a correct notion, especially when the accident which forms the substratum for the other accident is not constant but variable. Both difficulties are present in the notion of time: it is an accident of motion, which is itself an accident of a moving object; besides, it is not a fixed property; on the contrary, its true and essential condition is, not to remain in the same state for two consecutive moments. This is the source of ignorance about the nature of time. We consider time a thing created; it comes into existence in the same manner as other accidents, and the substances which form the substratum for the accidents. For this reason, viz., because time belongs to the things created, it cannot be said that God produced the Universe in the beginning. [172]Consider this well; for he who does not understand it is unable to refute forcible objections raised against the theory of Creatio ex nihilo. If you admit the existence of time before the Creation, you will be compelled to accept the theory of the Eternity of the Universe. For time is an accident and requires a substratum. You will therefore have to assume that something [beside God] existed before this Universe was created, an assumption which it is our duty to oppose. This is the first theory, and it is undoubtedly a fundamental principle of the Law of our teacher Moses; it is next in importance to the principle of God’s unity. Do not follow any other theory. Abraham, our father, was the first that taught it, after he had established it by philosophical research. He proclaimed, therefore, “the name of the
- 33. Lord the God of the Universe” (Gen. xxi. 33); and he had previously expressed this theory in the words, “The Possessor of heaven and earth” (ibid. xiv. 22). Second Theory.—The theory of all philosophers whose opinions and works are known to us is this: It is impossible to assume that God produced anything from nothing, or that He reduces anything to nothing; that is to say, it is impossible that an object consisting of matter and form should be produced when that matter is absolutely absent, or that it should be destroyed in such a manner that that matter be absolutely no longer in existence. To say of God that He can produce a thing from nothing or reduce a thing to nothing is, according to the opinion of these philosophers, the same as if we were to say that He could cause one substance to have at the same time two opposite properties, or produce another being like Himself, or change Himself into a body, or produce a square the diagonal of which be equal to its side, or similar impossibilities. The philosophers thus believe that it is no defect in the Supreme Being that He does not produce impossibilities, for the nature of that which is impossible is constant—it does not depend on the action of an agent, and for this reason it cannot be changed. Similarly there is, according to them, no defect in the greatness of God, when He is unable to produce a thing from nothing, because they consider this as one of the impossibilities. They therefore assume that a certain substance has co-existed with God from eternity in such a manner that neither God existed without that substance nor the latter without God. But they do not hold that the existence of that substance equals in rank that of God; for God is the cause of that existence, and the substance is in the same relation to God as the clay is to the potter, or the iron to the smith; God can do with it what He pleases; at one time He forms of it heaven and earth, at another time He forms some other thing. Those who hold this view also assume that the heavens are transient, that they came into existence, though not
- 34. from nothing, and may cease to exist, although they cannot be reduced to nothing. They are transient in the same manner as the individuals among living beings which are produced from some existing substance, and are again reduced to some substance that remains in existence. The process of genesis and destruction is, in the case of the heavens, the same as in that of earthly beings. The followers of this theory are divided into different schools, whose opinions and principles it is useless to discuss here; but what I have mentioned is common to all of them. Plato holds the same opinion. Aristotle says in [173]his Physics, that according to Plato the heavens are transient. This view is also stated in Plato’s Timæus. His opinion, however, does not agree with our belief; only superficial and careless persons wrongly assume that Plato has the same belief as we have. For whilst we hold that the heavens have been created from absolutely nothing, Plato believes that they have been formed out of something.—This is the second theory. Third Theory.—viz., that of Aristotle, his followers, and commentators. Aristotle maintains, like the adherents of the second theory, that a corporeal object cannot be produced without a corporeal substance. He goes, however, farther, and contends that the heavens are indestructible. For he holds that the Universe in its totality has never been different, nor will it ever change: the heavens, which form the permanent element in the Universe, and are not subject to genesis and destruction, have always been so; time and motion are eternal, permanent, and have neither beginning nor end; the sublunary world, which includes the transient elements, has always been the same, because the materia prima is itself eternal, and merely combines successively with different forms; when one form is removed, another is assumed. This whole arrangement, therefore, both above and here below, is never disturbed or interrupted, and nothing is produced contrary to the
- 35. laws or the ordinary course of Nature. He further says—though not in the same terms—that he considers it impossible for God to change His will or conceive a new desire; that God produced this Universe in its totality by His will, but not from nothing. Aristotle finds it as impossible to assume that God changes His will or conceives a new desire, as to believe that He is non-existing, or that His essence is changeable. Hence it follows that this Universe has always been the same in the past, and will be the same eternally. This is a full account of the opinions of those who consider that the existence of God, the First Cause of the Universe, has been established by proof. But it would be quite useless to mention the opinions of those who do not recognize the existence of God, but believe that the existing state of things is the result of accidental combination and separation of the elements, and that the Universe has no Ruler or Governor. Such is the theory of Epicurus and his school, and similar philosophers, as stated by Alexander [Aphrodisiensis]; it would be superfluous to repeat their views, since the existence of God has been demonstrated whilst their theory is built upon a basis proved to be untenable. It is likewise useless to prove the correctness of the followers of the second theory in asserting that the heavens are transient, because they at the same time believe in the Eternity of the Universe, and so long as this theory is adopted, it makes no difference to us whether it is believed that the heavens are transient, and that only their substance is eternal, or the heavens are held to be indestructible, in accordance with the view of Aristotle. All who follow the Law of Moses, our Teacher, and Abraham, our Father, and all who adopt similar theories, assume that nothing is eternal except God, and that the theory of Creatio ex nihilo includes nothing that is impossible, whilst some thinkers even regard it as an established truth.
- 36. After having described the different theories, I will now proceed to show how Aristotle proved his theory, and what induced him to adopt it. [174] [Contents]
- 37. CHAPTER XIV It is not necessary to repeat in every chapter that I write this treatise with the full knowledge of what you have studied; that I therefore need not quote the exact words of the philosophers; it will suffice to give an abstract of their views. I will, however, point out the methods which they employ, in the same manner as I have done when I discussed the theories of the Mutakallemim. No notice will be taken of the opinion of any philosopher but that of Aristotle; his opinions alone deserve to be criticized, and if our objections or doubts with regard to any of these be well founded, this must be the case in a far higher degree in respect to all other opponents of our fundamental principles. I now proceed to describe the methods of the philosophers. First Method.—According to Aristotle, motion, that is to say, motion par excellence, is eternal. For if the motion had a beginning, there must already have been some motion when it came into existence, for transition from potentiality into actuality, and from non-existence into existence, always implies motion; then that previous motion, the cause of the motion which follows, must be eternal, or else the series would have to be carried back ad infinitum. On the same principle he maintains that time is eternal, for time is related to and connected with motion: there is no motion except in time, and time can only be perceived by motion, as has been demonstrated by proof. By this argument Aristotle proves the eternity of the Universe. Second Method.—The First Substance common to the four elements is eternal. For if it had a beginning it would have come into existence from another substance; it would further be endowed with a form,
- 38. as coming into existence is nothing but receiving Form. But we mean by “First Substance” a formless substance; it can therefore not have come into existence from another substance, and must be without beginning and without end; hence it is concluded that the Universe is eternal. Third Method.—The substance of the spheres contains no opposite elements; for circular motion includes no such opposite directions as are found in rectilinear motion. Whatever is destroyed, owes its destruction to the opposite elements it contains. The spheres contain no opposite elements; they are therefore indestructible, and because they are indestructible they are also without beginning. Aristotle thus assumes the axiom that everything that has had a beginning is destructible, and that everything destructible has had a beginning; that things without beginning are indestructible, and indestructible things are without beginning. Hence follows the Eternity of the Universe. Fourth Method.—The actual production of a thing is preceded in time by its possibility. The actual change of a thing is likewise preceded in time by its possibility. From this proposition Aristotle derives the eternity of the circular motion of the spheres. The Aristotelians in more recent time employ this proposition in demonstrating the Eternity of the Universe. They argue thus: When the Universe did not yet exist, its existence was either possible or necessary, or impossible. If it was necessary, the Universe could never have been non-existing; if impossible, the Universe could never have been in existence; if possible, the question arises, What was the substratum [175]of that possibility? for there must be in existence something of which that possibility can be predicated. This is a forcible argument in favour of the Eternity of the Universe. Some of the later schools of the Mutakallemim imagined that they could confute this argument by objecting that the possibility rests with the agent, and not with the
- 39. production. But this objection is of no force whatever; for there are two distinct possibilities, viz., the thing produced has had the possibility of being produced before this actually took place; and the agent has had the possibility of producing it before he actually did so. There are, therefore, undoubtedly two possibilities—that of the substance to receive a certain form, and that of the agent to perform a certain act. These are the principal methods, based on the properties of the Universe, by which Aristotle proves the Eternity of the Universe. There are, however, other methods of proving the Eternity of the Universe. They are based on the notions formed of God, and philosophers after Aristotle derived them from his philosophy. Some of them employed the following argument:— Fifth Method.—If God produced the Universe from nothing, He must have been a potential agent before He was an actual one, and must have passed from a state of potentiality into that of actuality—a process that is merely possible, and requires an agent for effecting it. This argument is likewise a source of great doubts, and every intelligent person must examine it in order to refute it and to expose its character. Sixth Method.—An agent is active at one time and inactive at another, according as favourable or unfavourable circumstances arise. The unfavourable circumstances cause the abandonment of an intended action. The favourable ones, on the other hand, even produce a desire for an action for which there has not been a desire previously. As, however, God is not subject to accidents which could bring about a change in His will, and is not affected by obstacles and hindrances that might appear or disappear, it is impossible, they argue, to imagine that God is active at one time and inactive at
- 40. another. He is, on the contrary, always active in the same manner as He is always in actual existence. Seventh Method.—The actions of God are perfect; they are in no way defective, nor do they contain anything useless or superfluous. In similar terms Aristotle frequently praises Him, when he says that Nature is wise and does nothing in vain, but makes everything as perfect as possible. The philosophers therefore contend that this existing Universe is so perfect that it cannot be improved, and must be permanent; for it is the result of God’s wisdom, which is not only always present in His essence, but is identical with it. All arguments in favour of the Eternity of the Universe are based on the above methods, and can be traced to one or other of them. The following objection is also raised against Creatio ex nihilo: How could God ever have been inactive without producing or creating anything in the infinite past? How could He have passed the long infinite period which preceded the Creation without producing anything, so as to commence, as it were, only yesterday, the Creation of the Universe? For even if you said, e.g., that God created previously as many successive worlds as the outermost sphere could contain grains of mustard, and that each of these worlds existed as [176]many years: considering the infinite existence of God, it would be the same as if He had only yesterday commenced the Creation. For when we once admit the beginning of the existence of things after their non-existence, it makes no difference whether thousands of centuries have passed since the beginning, or only a short time. Those who defend the Eternity of the Universe find both assumptions equally improbable. Eighth Method.—The following method is based on the circumstance that the theory implies a belief which is so common to all peoples and ages, and so universal, that it appears to express a real fact and
- 41. not merely an hypothesis. Aristotle says that all people have evidently believed in the permanency and stability of the heavens; and thinking that these were eternal, they declared them to be the habitation of God and of the spiritual beings or angels. By thus attributing the heavens to God, they expressed their belief that the heavens are indestructible. Several other arguments of the same kind are employed by Aristotle in treating of this subject in order to support the results of his philosophical speculation by common sense. [Contents]
- 42. CHAPTER XV In this chapter I intend to show that Aristotle was well aware that he had not proved the Eternity of the Universe. He was not mistaken in this respect. He knew that he could not prove his theory, and that his arguments and proofs were only apparent and plausible. They are the least objectionable, according to Alexander; but, according to the same authority, Aristotle could not have considered them conclusive, after having himself taught us the rules of logic, and the means by which arguments can be refuted or confirmed. The reason why I have introduced this subject is this: Later philosophers, disciples of Aristotle, assume that he has proved the Eternity of the Universe, and most of those who believe that they are philosophers blindly follow him in this point, and accept all his arguments as conclusive and absolute proofs. They consider it wrong to differ from Aristotle, or to think that he was ignorant or mistaken in anything. For this reason, taking their standpoint, I show that Aristotle himself did not claim to have proved the Eternity of the Universe. He says in his book Physics (viii., chap. i.) as follows: “All the Physicists before us believed that motion is eternal, except Plato, who holds that motion is transient; according to his opinion the heavens are likewise transient.” Now if Aristotle had conclusive proofs for his theory, he would not have considered it necessary to support it by citing the opinions of preceding Physicists, nor would he have found it necessary to point out the folly and absurdity of his opponents. For a truth, once established by proof, does neither gain force nor certainty by the consent of all scholars, nor lose by the general dissent. We further find that Aristotle, in the book The Heavens and the World, introduces his theory of the Eternity of the Universe in the following manner: “Let us inquire into the nature of
- 43. the heavens, and see whether they are the product of something or not, destructible or not.” After this statement of the problem, he proceeds to cite the views of those who hold that the heavens have had a beginning, and continues thus: “By doing this, our theory will be most plausible and acceptable in the [177]opinion of profound thinkers; and it will be the more so, when, as we propose, the arguments of our opponents are first heard. For if we were to state our opinion and our arguments without mentioning those of our opponents, our words would be received less favourably. He who desires to be just must not show himself hostile to his opponent; he must have sympathy with him, and readily acknowledge any truth contained in his words; he must admit the correctness of such of his opponent’s arguments as he would admit if they were in his own favour.” This is the contents of the words of Aristotle. Now, I ask you, men of intelligence, can we have any complaint against him after this frank statement? Or can any one now imagine that a real proof has been given for the Eternity of the Universe? Or can Aristotle, or any one else, believe that a theorem, though fully proved, would not be acceptable unless the arguments of the opponents were fully refuted? We must also take into consideration that Aristotle describes this theory as his opinion, and his proofs as arguments. Is Aristotle ignorant of the difference between argument and proof? between opinions, which may be received more or less favourably, and truths capable of demonstration? or would rhetorical appeal to the impartiality of opponents have been required for the support of his theory if a real proof had been given? Certainly not. Aristotle only desires to show that his theory is better than those of his opponents, who hold that philosophical speculation leads to the conviction that the heavens are transient, but have never been entirely without existence; or that the heavens have had a beginning, but are indestructible; or to defend any of the other views mentioned by him. In this he is undoubtedly right; for his opinion is nearer the truth than theirs, so far as a proof can be taken
- 44. from the nature of existing things; we differ from him, as will be explained. Passion, that exercises great influence in most of the different sects, must have influenced even the philosophers who wished to affirm that Aristotle demonstrated his theory by proof. Perhaps they really believe it, and assume that Aristotle himself was not aware of it, as it was only discovered after his death! My conviction is, that what Aristotle says on the Eternity of the Universe, the cause of the variety in the motion of the spheres and the order of the Intelligences, cannot be proved, and that Aristotle never intended to prove these things. I agree with him that the ways of proving this theory have their gates closed before us, there being no foundation on which to build up the proof. His words on this subject are well known. He says, “There are things concerning which we are unable to reason, or which we find too high for us; to say why these things have a certain property is as difficult as to decide whether the Universe is eternal or not.” So far Aristotle. The interpretation which Abu-nasr offers of this parallel is well known. He denies that Aristotle had any doubt about the Eternity of the Universe, and is very severe upon Galen, who maintains that this theory is still doubtful, and that no proof has been offered. According to Abu-nasr, it is clear and demonstrable by proof that the heavens are eternal, but all that is enclosed within the heavens is transient. We hold, that by none of the methods mentioned in this chapter can a theory be established, refuted, or shaken. We have mentioned these things only because we know that the majority of those who consider themselves wise, although they know nothing of science, accept the theory of the Eternity of the Universe on the authority [178]of famous scholars. They reject the words of the prophets, because the latter do not employ any scientific method by which only a few persons would be instructed who are intellectually well prepared, but simply communicate the truth as received by Divine inspiration.
- 45. In the chapters which follow we will expound the theory of the Creation in accordance with the teaching of Scripture. [Contents]
- 46. CHAPTER XVI In this chapter I will first expound my view on this question, and then support it by argument—not by such arguments as those of the Mutakallemim, who believe that they have proved the Creatio ex nihilo. I will not deceive myself, and consider dialectical methods as proofs; and the fact that a certain proposition has been proved by a dialectical argument will never induce me to accept that proposition, but, on the contrary, will weaken my faith in it, and cause me to doubt it. For when we understand the fallacy of a proof, our faith in the proposition itself is shaken. It is therefore better that a proposition which cannot be demonstrated be received as an axiom, or that one of the two opposite solutions of the problem be accepted on authority. The methods by which the Mutakallemim proved the Creatio ex nihilo have already been described by me, and I have exposed their weak points. As to the proofs of Aristotle and his followers for the Eternity of the Universe, they are, according to my opinion, not conclusive; they are open to strong objections, as will be explained. I intend to show that the theory of the Creation, as taught in Scripture, contains nothing that is impossible; and that all those philosophical arguments which seem to disprove our view contain weak points which make them inconclusive, and render the attacks on our view untenable. Since I am convinced of the correctness of my method, and consider either of the two theories— viz., the Eternity of the Universe, and the Creation—as admissible, I accept the latter on the authority of Prophecy, which can teach things beyond the reach of philosophical speculation. For the belief in prophecy is, as will be shown in the course of this treatise, consistent even with the belief in the Eternity of the Universe. When I have established the admissibility of our theory, I will, by philosophical reasoning, show that our theory of the Creation is
- 47. more acceptable than that of the Eternity of the Universe; and although our theory includes points open to criticism, I will show that there are much stronger reasons for the rejection of the theory of our opponents. I will now proceed to expound the method by which the proofs given for the Eternity of the Universe can be refuted. [Contents]
- 48. CHAPTER XVII Everything produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, e.g., the human ovum as [179]contained in the female’s blood when still included in its vessels; its nature is different from what it was in the moment of conception, when it is met by the semen of the male and begins to develop; the properties of the semen in that moment are different from the properties of the living being after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion; you will reject evident truths and admit false opinions. Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man has never seen a woman or any female being; he asks some person how man has come into existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: “Man begins his existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which has a certain form. While in the womb
- 49. he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him.” The orphan will naturally ask: “Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?” The answer will be, “No.” Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the following manner: “When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time he dies, and cannot move any longer: how then can we imagine that any one of us has been inclosed in a bag in the midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be dead: how then can man remain alive for months without taking food? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death would follow in a short time, and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months without that function! Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fœtus has been open! Why should the fœtus not open the eyes, spread forth the hands and stretch out the legs, if, as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect.” This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and develop in the manner described. If philosophers would consider this example well and reflect on it, they would find that it represents exactly the dispute between Aristotle and ourselves. We, the followers of Moses, our Teacher, and of Abraham, our Father, believe that the Universe has been produced
- 50. and has developed in a [180]certain manner, and that it has been created in a certain order. The Aristotelians oppose us, and found their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of their production; and we hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence. Their arguments are therefore no objection whatever to our theory; they have demonstrative force only against those who hold that the nature of things as at present in existence proves the Creation. But this is not my opinion. I will now return to our theme, viz., to the description of the principal proofs of Aristotle, and show that they prove nothing whatever against us, since we hold that God brought the entire Universe into existence from absolute non-existence, and that He caused it to develop into the present state. Aristotle says that the materia prima is eternal, and by referring to the properties of transient beings he attempts to prove this statement, and to show that the materia prima could not possibly have been produced. He is right; we do not maintain that the materia prima has been produced in the same manner as man is produced from the ovum, and that it can be destroyed in the same manner as man is reduced to dust. But we believe that God created it from nothing, and that since its creation it has its own properties, viz., that all things are produced of it and again reduced to it, when they cease to exist; that it does not exist without Form; and that it is the source of all genesis and destruction. Its genesis is not like that of the things produced from it, nor its destruction like theirs; for it has been created from nothing, and if it should please the Creator, He might reduce it to absolutely nothing. The same applies to motion. Aristotle founds some of his proofs on the fact that motion is not subject to genesis