“The Incoherence of the Incoherence” written by Averroes challenges al-Ghazali’s argument in his text “The Incoherence of the Philosophers”.  Al-Ghazali’s work attacks philosophers (specifically Aristotle) with 20 points, challenging many Aristotlelian beliefs regarding the eternity of the world and God’s “will”.  Averroes sides with Aritstotle while highlighting the problems with Al-Ghazali’s argument and responding to each problem individually.  Section 3 of “The Incoherence of the Incoherence” begins with a discourse on God’s will.  Averroes disputes Al-Ghazali explaining the difference between God’s will and human will.  For humans, willing to do something and actually doing what you willed are seperate.  For instance, if one says they are going to stop eating sweets tomorrow, they may still eat sweets when the day arrives.  The act of using will only arives when the time comes to deny sweets or eat them.  Many individuals when on a diet refuse to keep these “unhealthy” foods in their home as a result of their lack of will power.  According to Averroes, God does not suffer this human quality : “For he who chooses and wills lacks the things which he wills, and God cannot lack anything He wills. And he who chooses makes a choice for himself of the better of two things, but God is in no need of a better condition. Further, when the will-er has reached his object, his will ceases and, generally speaking, will is a passive quality and a change”.  Thus, Averoes asserts that Al-Ghazali’s argument is wrong because God will and human will can not be weighed upon the same scale.  I believe Averroes is suggesting that will is sparked from the need of something.  Because God is “perfect” he does not need anything, thus his action and will are directly aligned, occurring simultaneously.