Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, answered from the texts and cited to the page.
It has not. Every argument offered — that a temporal creation would require a change in the eternal will, that time cannot have begun, that an eternal cause must have an eternal effect — assumes what it sets out to prove.1234
Me bea) SY) Gas oS co Read) BaIYI Gals ob (1.4) Lad fin Wi Ledll oe ee Vy le Vi o peal sO jes cB ena S91 VI CAS Oly. jal) Ge ley VI adh 3 ol DI eg oh oe LY fe sabe py gable by 9 LIS BUS lb clea je pS os de Seal Gs Jb aby be) be Ged Shi pd cde ek Le gh 5a YI gh tell of SLY! BUS of 3 JIS! ghee Sole Gedy OI OG SUS fs See Ady OW Soe (20) The sum total of this is that the necessitating [cause would] exist with all its…The Incoherence of the Philosophers, pp. 62–63
If [the world] is originated through God's origination of it, then why was it originated now and not earlier? Is this because of a lack of an instrument, power, purpose, or nature, such that, once these are replaced by existence, [the world] came to be originated [now]? But then the same difficulty recurs. Or is [its not being created earlier] due to the lack of a will?The Incoherence of the Philosophers, pp. 57–59
How, then, will the one become two—nay, a thousand—then revert to becoming one? This is only intelligible in things that have magnitude and quantity, like the water of the sea that divides through streams and rivers and then returns to the sea.The Incoherence of the Philosophers, pp. 69–71
Thirdly, what is not free from changes is an originated or new thing or whatever is not indepedent of originated things is itself originated. Its proof is that if it were not so, the world before every new thing may change which has got no beginning and unless these new things come to nought, the turn for the-present new things to come into being would never come.Revival of the Religious Sciences, Ihya Ulum al-Din Vol 1, p. 104
The first and longest of the discussions, and the source of a line of argument still running.