Hubbry Logo
Creatio ex nihiloCreatio ex nihiloMain
Open search
Creatio ex nihilo
Community hub
Creatio ex nihilo
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Creatio ex nihilo
Creatio ex nihilo
Creatio ex nihilo
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Tree of Life by Eli Content at the Joods Historisch Museum. The Tree of Life, or Etz haChayim (עץ החיים) in Hebrew, is a mystical symbol used in the Kabbalah of esoteric Judaism to describe the path to HaShem and the manner in which he created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing).

Creatio ex nihilo (Latin, 'creation out of nothing') or nihilogony is the doctrine that matter is not eternal but had to be created by some divine creative act.[1] It is a theistic answer to the question of how the universe came to exist. It is in contrast to Creatio ex materia resultante ex aseitate logica (creation from matter resulting from logical aseity; but modern foundationalism is cosmological with improvements from the 17th century viewpoint), sometimes framed in terms of the dictum ex nihilo nihil fit or 'nothing comes from nothing', meaning all things were formed ex materia (that is, from pre-existing things).

Creatio ex materia

[edit]
Main article: Creatio ex materia

Creatio ex materia refers to the idea that matter has always existed and that the modern cosmos is a reformation of pre-existing, primordial matter; it is sometimes articulated by the philosophical dictum that nothing can come from nothing.[2]

In ancient Near Eastern cosmology, the universe is formed ex materia from eternal formless matter,[3] namely the dark and still primordial ocean of chaos.[4] In Sumerian myth this cosmic ocean is personified as the goddess Nammu "who gave birth to heaven and earth" and had existed forever;[5] in the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish, pre-existent chaos is made up of fresh-water Apsu and salt-water Tiamat, and from Tiamat the god Marduk created Heaven and Earth;[6] in Egyptian creation myths a pre-existent watery chaos personified as the god Nun and associated with darkness, gave birth to the primeval hill (or in some versions a primeval lotus flower, or in others a celestial cow);[7] and in Greek traditions the ultimate origin of the universe, depending on the source, is sometimes Oceanus (a river that circles the Earth), Night, or water.[8]

Similarly, the Genesis creation narrative opens with the Hebrew phrase bereshit bara elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz, which can be interpreted in at least three ways:

  1. As a statement that the cosmos had an absolute beginning (In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth).
  2. As a statement describing the condition of the world when God began creating (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was untamed and shapeless).
  3. As background information (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth being untamed and shapeless, God said, Let there be light!).[9]

Though option 1 has been the historic and predominant view,[10] it has been suggested since the Middle Ages that it cannot be the preferred translation based on strictly linguistic and exegetical grounds.[11] Whereas our modern societies see the origin of matter as a question of crucial importance, this may not have been the case for ancient cultures. Some scholars assert that when the author(s) of Genesis wrote the creation account, they were more concerned with God bringing the cosmos into operation by assigning roles and functions.[12]

Creatio ex nihilo in religion

[edit]

Creatio ex nihilo is the doctrine that all matter was created out of nothing by God in an initializing act whereby the cosmos came into existence.[13][14] The third-century founder of Neoplatonism, Plotinus, argued that the cosmos was instead an emanation of God. Emanationism was rejected by Jewish philosophers, as well as the Church Fathers and Muslim philosophers who followed.[15]

African traditional religions

[edit]

African traditional religions tend to favour creatio ex materia over creatio ex nihilo,[16] and it is absent in Akan, Acholi, and Yoruba religions.[17]: 59, 267, 359  Ghanaian philosopher Kwasi Wiredu has argued that some religions such as those of the Shona, Nuer, and Banyarwanda "affirm the notion of creatio ex nihilo".[18]: 569–570 

Ancient Near East

[edit]

Although ancient near-eastern cosmology is read as invoking a process of creatio ex materia,[19][20] occasional suggestions have been made that creatio ex nihilo can be found at least in some texts, including the Egyptian Memphite theology and the Hebrew Biblical Genesis creation narrative.[21] Hilber rejected these interpretations, viewing both as consistent with creatio ex materia and instead suggesting that some passages in the Book of Isaiah, the Book of Proverbs, and the Psalms indicate a form of creatio ex nihilo.[22] The cosmogonical doxologies of the Book of Amos also present a view of creation ex nihilo.[23]

Bakongo spirituality

[edit]

In Bakongo religion, the Bakongo people believe that "the world in its beginning was empty; it was an mbûngi, an empty thing, a cavity, without visible life." Mbûngi (also called mwasi and mpampa) was symbolized as a circle of emptiness. The creator god Nzambi, along with his female counterpart called Nzambici, is believed to have created a spark of fire, called kalûnga, and summoned it inside of mbûngi. Kalûnga grew and became a great force of energy inside of mbûngi, creating a mass of fusion. When the mass grew too hot, the heated force caused the mass to break apart and hurl projectiles outside of mbûngi. Those projectiles became individual masses that scattered about, and when the fires cooled, planets formed and life came to be. The Bakongo believe this was the process Nzambi used to create the universe, with the sun, stars, planets, etc. The Bakongo referred to this process as luku lwalamba Nzambi, or "God created and cooked dough." Because of this, kalûnga is seen as the origin of life, or moyo wawo mu nza, and the Bakongo believe that life requires constant change and perpetual motion. Thus, Nzambi is also referred to as Kalûnga, the god of change. Similarities between the Bakongo belief of kalûnga and the Big Bang Theory have been studied. Unlike many other traditional African spiritualities, the creation beliefs of the Bakongo are compatible with creatio ex nihilio.[24]

Christianity

[edit]
See also: Divine conservation

Nicene Christian theologies hold to creation ex nihilo.[25] The doctrine has been defended in Christian circles since the religion's infancy, receiving its first explicit articulation by Theophilus of Antioch in To Autolycus. In a chapter entitled "Absurd Opinions of the Philosophers Concerning God", he writes:

As, therefore, in all these respects God is more powerful than man, so also in this; that out of things that are not He creates and has created things that are.[26][27]

Theophilus's statement is nearly identical to epistle to the Romans 4:17:

God...who quickeneth the dead; and calleth those things that are not, as those that are.

Thus, there is evidence that creation ex nihilo was being discussed in at least some Christian theological circles by the 3rd century.[28][29] In late antiquity, John Philoponus was its most prominent defender.[30]

Some theologians have proposed alternatives to creatio ex nihilo, like the idea of God creating the universe from Godself (ex ipse), which suggests the universe is similar to God. Others argue for creation from pre-existent matter (ex materia), implying the world does not rely on God for existence.[31] The notion of creatio ex nihilo underlies some modern arguments for the existence of God among Christian and other theistic philosophers, especially as articulated in the cosmological argument,[32] as well as its more particular manifestation in the Kalam cosmological argument.[33]

Augustine of Hippo affirmed an allegorical interpretation of the six-day account of creation in the book of Genesis.[34] He argues that the number 7 is significant and serves as a symbol of the perfection of God's creative work. He suggests that the first three days of creation cannot be considered perfect because the Sun was created on the fourth day. Additionally, he notes that the night of the sixth day is not mentioned in the biblical account. Augustine further contends that the notion of God resting on the seventh day is questionable, as God is characterized as possessing all forms of wealth and is eternally unchangeable; thus, a change in state between the sixth and seventh days is deemed illogical. He emphasizes the concept of divine immutability and asserts that nothing can be added to the divine essence at any point—in relation to the unity of the Triune God worshipped in Nicene Christianity—while recognizing the distinct persons within the Trinity.[35]

According to Ambrose of Milan, God's rest follows the creation of humankind because God rests in the human being, which allows for a relationship of love to be established. In this context, God's rest is understood as a realization of love for his creatures, which is further connected to the concept of redemption in Christian theology. Ambrose distinguishes a link between the 'rest of God' and the 'rest' of Jesus on the cross.[36]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[edit]
Main article: Mormonism

Adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe, as Nicene Christians do, that God created the universe ex nihilo.[37] Rather, to Latter-day Saints, God's act of creation is essentially an organization of pre-existing matter, or creatio ex materia.[38]

Hinduism

[edit]

The Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1 declares that before the world was manifested, there was only "existence" itself, one and unparalleled (sat eva ekam eva advitīyam). Swami Lokeshwarananda commented on this passage, saying, "something out of nothing is an absurd idea".[39]

Islam

[edit]
Main article: Islamic mythology

Most scholars of Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, hold the belief that God is the unmoved mover and creator; he did not create the world from pre-existing matter.[40][41] However, some scholars, adhering to a strict literal interpretation of the Quran, such as Ibn Taimiyya, whose writing became the foundation of Wahhabism and related denominations, hold that God fashioned the world out of primordial matter.[42][verification needed]

Judaism

[edit]

One of the earliest recorded articulations of the concept of creatio ex nihilo is in the non-canonical Jewish text 2 Maccabees.[43][44] In 2 Maccabees 7:28, the author writes:

I implore you, my child, observe heaven and earth, consider all that is in them, and acknowledge that God made them out of what did not exist, and that mankind comes into being the same way.[45]

Some have argued against interpreting 2 Maccabees this way, and none of the books of Maccabees are included in the Jewish canon.[46][47]

In the first century CE, Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew, laid out the basic idea of ex nihilo creation, albeit inconsistently. Philo rejected the Greek notion of an eternal universe, maintaining that God created time itself.[48] In other places,[specify] it has been argued that he postulated pre-existent matter alongside God.[49] Later scholars, such as Harry Austryn Wolfson, interpreted Philo's cosmology differently, arguing that the so-called pre-existent matter was indeed created.[50]

Saadia Gaon, a late 9th- and 10th-century Middle Egyptian-Palestinian rabbi, gaon, philosopher, and exegete, formally introduced ex nihilo creation into Jewish Tanakh interpretation with the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, the first systematic theology of Rabbinic Judaism. Today, religious Judaism asserts creation ex nihilo, although some Jewish scholars maintain that Genesis 1:1 allows for the pre-existence of matter to which God gives form.[51]

Hasidism and Kabbalah

[edit]
Main article: Ayin and Yesh

Jewish philosophers of the 9th and 10th centuries adopted the concept of "yesh me-Ayin" (something from nothing), contradicting Greek philosophers and the Aristotelian stance that the world was created out of primordial matter and/or was eternal.[52]

Stoicism

[edit]
Main article: Stoicism

Stoicism, founded by Zeno of Citium c. 300 BCE, holds the belief that creation out of nothing is impossible and that Zeus created the world out of his own being.[53]

In modern science

[edit]
Further information: Big Bang § Pre–Big Bang cosmology, and Cosmogony

The Big Bang theory, in contrast to theology, is a scientific theory; it offers no explanation of cosmic existence but only a description of the first few moments of the existence of the current universe.[54][55]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Creatio ex nihilo

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing" in Latin) is a theological doctrine central to , particularly , , and , asserting that originated the entire and all existence from absolute non-being, without reliance on any pre-existent , chaos, or divine substance. This view emphasizes divine transcendence and , rejecting notions of eternal or a shaping formless material, as found in Platonic or Gnostic frameworks. The doctrine first crystallized in second-century , notably through figures like and , as a counter to dualistic cosmologies positing co-eternal alongside . While inferred from biblical texts such as Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning created the heavens and the "), :3, and Romans 4:17—which imply origination without material precursors—scholarly analysis holds that explicit formulation postdates the , emerging amid debates with . Philosophically, it supports causal arguments for a contingent with a necessary first cause, aligning with evidence of cosmic temporality from cosmology, which posits a finite-age originating from a singularity. Controversies persist, including challenges from questioning unilateral divine causation and from scientific interpretations suggesting quantum fluctuations as pseudo-"nothings," though these do not negate the doctrine's insistence on absolute dependence of being upon an uncreated Creator.

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Etymology and Core Meaning

The Latin phrase creatio ex nihilo literally translates to "creation out of nothing," with creatio deriving from the creāre, meaning "to create" or "to bring into being," ex serving as the preposition "out of" or "from," and nihilō as the ablative form of nihil, denoting "nothing" or "non-being." This compound expression entered English theological discourse by at least 1825, though its conceptual roots predate the phrase in patristic writings. At its core, creatio ex nihilo articulates the theological assertion that a transcendent originated the and all existent from absolute nothingness, implying no pre-existing substance, chaos, or divine emanation as raw material. This doctrine emphasizes the radical contingency of the —its total dependence on an uncaused divine will—and divine sovereignty unbound by prior conditions, distinguishing it from pagan cosmologies like those in Hesiod's (c. 700 BCE), where creation involves shaping eternal primordial elements. In Abrahamic traditions, it counters notions of eternal or dualistic forces, affirming that itself is a gratuitous act of power rather than necessity.

Distinction from Creatio ex Materia

Creatio ex nihilo denotes the theological and philosophical doctrine wherein a divine agent originates the entirety of from absolute non-being, without reliance on any pre-existent substance, , or potentiality. This concept emphasizes the radical contingency of the created order, positing that all depends solely on the causative power of the creator, who transcends and is independent of any substrate. In opposition, creatio ex materia describes a process of formation or wherein a divine or crafting agent shapes, arranges, or imposes order upon already-existing material, such as primordial chaos or unformed substance. This mode of production aligns with views in certain ancient cosmogonies, like Plato's Timaeus, where the fashions the from receptive matter rather than inaugurating its very being. Unlike ex nihilo, it implies a duality or limitation, as the agent's activity operates within constraints of given elements, akin to artisanal workmanship rather than origination . The fundamental divergence lies in ontological priority and divine sovereignty: ex nihilo asserts unqualified primacy, rejecting co-eternal principles and affirming creation as an act of pure efficacious will, whereas ex materia accommodates pre-existent realities, potentially diluting the creator's absoluteness by introducing independent substrates subject only to reconfiguration. This distinction, formalized in patristic and scholastic theology, serves to demarcate monotheistic transcendence from dualistic or emanationist frameworks, ensuring that existence itself bears the imprint of unconditioned divine initiative rather than derivative assembly.

Philosophical Prerequisites

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo rests on key metaphysical commitments, including the contingency of the —its as non-necessary and wholly dependent on an external cause—and the transcendence of the divine creator, who exists independently of any created order. These prerequisites reject notions of an eternal or self-subsistent , as in Aristotelian cosmology where prime endures indefinitely under an , and instead affirm that all finite being derives its actuality solely from a necessary, immaterial source. A foundational requirement is the universe's absolute temporal beginning, without prior material or potential substrate, which necessitates a personal efficient cause capable of initiating change from timeless eternity. This cause must possess attributes such as immensity (non-spatial), eternality (beyond time), and volitional freedom to bridge the gap between an unchanging divine nature and the temporal onset of contingent existence, avoiding paradoxes of or uncaused causation. Greek philosophical axioms like ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes), rooted in Parmenidean , are thus reframed: "nothing" denotes absence of material preconditions, not the negation of agency, allowing divine will to produce being where none previously obtained. Ontologically, creatio ex nihilo demands a radical ontological distinction between Creator and creation, preserving divine simplicity (undivided essence) while attributing existence (esse) to creatures as a participated gift rather than emanation from divine substance, which would blur transcendence. This framework counters emanationist or pantheistic models, such as Neoplatonic procession from the One, by emphasizing unilateral divine gratuity and the world's non-eternal dependence, formalized in thinkers like Thomas Aquinas as the act of creation imparting substantial being to what would otherwise be mere non-being.

Historical Origins and Development

Pre-Christian Influences and Contrasts

In ancient Mesopotamian cosmology, creation narratives such as the , a Babylonian epic dated to the late second millennium BCE, depict the universe arising not from nothingness but from primordial chaos embodied by the freshwater Apsū and the saltwater , whose union produces younger gods before defeats and dismembers Tiamat to form the heavens and earth from her body. This process of ordering and reshaping existing chaotic elements exemplifies creatio ex materia, where divine action transforms pre-existent substance rather than originating it ex nihilo. Similarly, ancient Egyptian cosmogonies, varying by cult center but unified in motif, originate from , the infinite primordial waters representing inert chaos predating ordered existence, from which the creator god—such as in the Heliopolitan tradition—emerges to generate the through self-generation or speech, yet without abolishing or creating the underlying chaotic medium. In the Hermopolitan account, an ogdoad of paired deities embodying Nun's elements precedes the sun god's from a or mound, underscoring creation as differentiation within eternal potentiality rather than absolute novelty. These myths, attested in from the 24th century BCE onward, thus contrast with creatio ex nihilo by presupposing an uncreated substrate of chaos or matter amenable to divine organization. In Greek philosophy, pre-Socratic thinkers like (c. 610–546 BCE) posited the —an indefinite, eternal boundless source—from which opposites arise and return, implying no true origination from nothing but cyclic transformation of primordial stuff. Plato's Timaeus (c. 360 BCE) elaborates this in the demiurge's role, a benevolent craftsman who imposes mathematical order and forms on a pre-existing receptacle of chaotic, errant matter to fashion the cosmos, limited by necessity and unable to generate matter itself. (384–322 BCE) further entrenched the eternity of matter in his cosmology, arguing in that the universe and its substratum are ungenerated and imperishable, as potentiality requires eternal actuality for change, rejecting any absolute beginning as incompatible with observed eternal motion. These views, encapsulated in the principle ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes), influenced Hellenistic thought but stood in opposition to later doctrines asserting divine sovereignty over non-being, highlighting a philosophical contrast where matter's independence delimits creation to formation rather than pure invention.

Emergence in Early Judaism and Christianity

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo first appears in nascent form within , particularly in the apocryphal text , composed around 124 BCE. In 7:28, a martyred mother exhorts her son: "Look at the heaven and the earth and everything that exists therein; reflect that God made them out of things that did not exist, and thus mankind comes into being." This passage, amid the persecution under , posits that the cosmos originated from non-existence through divine fiat, countering Hellenistic notions of eternal matter or cyclical creation prevalent in surrounding cultures. While not using precise later , it marks an early Jewish assertion of God's absolute origination of material reality, distinct from creatio ex materia interpretations of Genesis 1:1-2 where formless matter (tohu wa-bohu) might pre-exist. Subsequent texts, such as parts of the (circa 50 BCE–50 CE), reinforce divine sovereignty over creation without unambiguous ex nihilo phrasing, emphasizing God's formation from "unformed matter" in 11:17 but ultimately tracing origins to his will alone. Rabbinic traditions post-70 CE, as in the (compiled circa 200 CE), retrospectively affirm creation from nothing to uphold monotheistic transcendence against dualistic or Platonic influences, though Palestinian Jewish sources prior to the rarely articulate it explicitly. This emergence likely stemmed from theological needs to affirm and divine power amid Hellenistic pressures, rather than direct biblical , as Genesis itself permits readings of God shaping pre-existent chaos. In , the concept solidified in the second century CE as an apologetic tool against Gnostic dualism and pagan eternal-matter cosmologies, building on Jewish precedents like . , in To Autolycus (circa 180 CE), explicitly states: ", who is before all worlds, and before everything that was made, made all things out of nothing," rejecting Stoic and Platonic views of 's co-eternity with . of Lyons (circa 180 CE), in Against Heresies, further develops it to refute Valentinian Gnostics who posited as emanated from a flawed , insisting instead that the one Creator brought all into being from non-being to affirm his goodness over . This formulation addressed causal primacy: if pre-existed, 's would be limited; ex nihilo ensures creation's total dependence, aligning with Romans 4:17's "calls into existence the things that do not exist" though not explicitly cosmological in the . By the late second century, creatio ex nihilo became a hallmark of orthodox Christian theology, distinguishing it from Marcionite or Manichaean alternatives that viewed matter as inherently corrupt or eternal. (circa 200 CE) echoes this in Against Hermogenes, arguing creation from nothing preserves divine unity and avoids implying uncreated rivals to God. These patristic articulations prioritized empirical theological reasoning—observing the universe's contingency—over accommodated philosophical borrowings, though influenced by encounters with . The doctrine's adoption underscores early Christianity's causal realism: existence derives solely from God's willful act, precluding any primordial substrate.

Formulations in Medieval Theology

In the scholastic period of medieval theology, spanning the 11th to 13th centuries, creatio ex nihilo was rigorously defended and metaphysically elaborated as a doctrine of absolute divine causation, distinguishing Christian thought from Aristotelian notions of an eternal, uncreated cosmos sustained by a prime mover. Theologians emphasized that creation involves no pre-existent matter or potentiality apart from God's will, establishing creatures' total ontological dependence on the Creator without implying any deficiency in divine power or a temporal "before" populated by non-being. Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109), an early scholastic, addressed potential misinterpretations in his Monologion (c. 1076), clarifying that creatio ex nihilo does not posit creation from a void or prior non-being as substrate, but from God's intellective exemplars preexisting eternally in the divine mind, with matter itself produced solely by divine fiat. This formulation preserved the doctrine's scriptural basis while countering materialist implications, affirming God's self-sufficiency as the efficient and exemplary cause of all that exists. Bonaventure (c. 1221–1274), a Franciscan theologian, integrated Augustinian illumination with rational arguments to demonstrate creatio ex nihilo as knowable by natural reason, rejecting Aristotelian as incompatible with contingency and divine freedom; he argued that the universe's temporal beginning from nothing manifests God's voluntary act, without implying succession in divine eternity or any co-eternal substrate. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), synthesizing Aristotelian categories with revelation in works like the Summa Theologiae (1265–1274), defined creation as the "procession of all being from [God's] simple act of existing," ex nihilo in the sense of no material cause or subject, only God as total cause of esse (existence itself), thereby resolving tensions between emanation-like dependency and the rejection of Neoplatonic necessities. This excluded any eternal matter, affirming instead the world's production in time by divine will, contra Averroist interpretations of that posited uncreated hylē (prime matter).

Doctrinal Role in Abrahamic Religions

In Judaism

In Jewish tradition, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo—creation from absolute nothing, without pre-existing matter—is inferred from Genesis 1:1, interpreted as God initiating existence ex nihilo rather than shaping primordial chaos, in contrast to Mesopotamian myths like the Enuma Elish that posit pre-cosmic elements. This reading emphasizes divine sovereignty, with rabbinic exegesis in texts like Genesis Rabbah (c. 400–600 CE) clarifying that terms such as tohu va-vohu (formless and void, Genesis 1:2) denote states created by God, not eternal substrates. Second Temple period writings provide explicit affirmations, such as 7:28 (c. 124 BCE), where a martyr declares God "made heaven and earth and all things that are therein ex hon ouk enen" (from things that were not), reflecting Hellenistic Jewish resistance to Platonic or Stoic notions of eternal . of (c. 20 BCE–50 CE), in works like De Opificio Mundi, further develops this by arguing the fashions the world from non-being, prioritizing scriptural over Greek philosophy's uncreated hyle (). Medieval philosophers solidified the doctrine amid Aristotelian challenges positing an eternal universe. Maimonides (1138–1204), in Guide for the Perplexed (completed 1190), defends creatio ex nihilo as rationally preferable, arguing an eternal cosmos implies co-eternal causes alongside God, undermining divine unity and voluntarism; he posits creation's temporality enables miracles and prophecy, though he concedes no conclusive proof exists beyond prophetic authority. This view prevails in Orthodox Judaism, distinguishing it from kabbalistic emanation models that, while affirming divine origin, sometimes imply intermediate stages from infinite potentiality.

In Christianity

In , creatio ex nihilo denotes the belief that brought the entire , including , and , into from absolute nothingness, without reliance on any pre-existing substance or materials. This doctrine underscores 's absolute , , and transcendence, positioning creation as an utterly gratuitous act of divine will rather than a transformation of eternal chaos or , as posited in Platonic or Gnostic cosmologies. It emerged as a key apologetic response in the second century AD to philosophical challenges, distinguishing orthodox from views that implied a dualistic or limited . The scriptural foundation for creatio ex nihilo is inferential rather than explicit, drawing primarily from passages such as Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"), interpreted as denoting the origin of all reality prior to any formed cosmos, and Hebrews 11:3 ("By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible"). Additional support comes from Romans 4:17, which describes God as "the one who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist," and 2 Maccabees 7:28, referenced in early Christian exegesis for its assertion that God made the universe "from things that did not exist." These texts were marshaled against interpretations suggesting God merely organized pre-existent matter, affirming instead that non-being preceded being through divine fiat. Early Church Fathers formalized the doctrine amid polemics against Gnosticism and Middle Platonism, which often viewed matter as co-eternal or emanated from a lesser demiurge. Theophilus of Antioch, around 180 AD, provided one of the earliest explicit articulations, stating that God created "what did not exist" by His word alone. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 185 AD) defended it scripturally against Valentinian Gnostics, arguing in Against Heresies that creation from nothing refutes notions of eternal matter and affirms God's singular authorship. Tertullian (c. 200 AD), in Against Hermogenes, mounted a robust defense, insisting that positing eternal matter compromises divine power and introduces an uncreated rival to God, thus making ex nihilo essential to monotheism. In the patristic era, figures like Athenagoras (c. 177 AD) and Hippolytus reinforced it, with Athenagoras emphasizing in A Plea for the Christians that the universe's origination from nothing demonstrates God's unbegotten nature. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) integrated creatio ex nihilo into his philosophy of time and being, arguing in Confessions (Book XI) and The Literal Meaning of Genesis that God created not only mutable things but mutability itself from nothing, resolving paradoxes of creation "in time" by positing time's simultaneous origin with the world. For Augustine, this doctrine manifests God's omnipotence, as no external matter was needed, and it counters Manichaean dualism by rendering all creation contingent and good by divine intention. Medieval and Reformation theology enshrined creatio ex nihilo as dogmatic, with in (c. 1270) affirming it as rationally necessary to avoid in causation and to uphold God's . The (1646) explicitly states that "it pleased ... out of nothing, by the word of his power, to create... all things," reflecting broad Protestant consensus. Eastern Orthodox tradition, as in Athanasius's On the Incarnation (c. 318 AD), upholds it without controversy, viewing creation from nothing as foundational to theosis and divine economy. Across denominations, the doctrine serves to affirm God's radical otherness, the contingency of the cosmos, and humanity's dependence, informing by paralleling redemption as calling forth life from spiritual "nothingness."

In Islam

In Islamic , creatio ex nihilo is derived from Quranic descriptions of as the sole originator (badi') of , implying the universe's emergence without pre-existing material substrate. 2:117 designates as "Originator of the heavens and the ," a term interpreted by theologians to signify innovative creation from absolute non-being, underscoring divine sovereignty over all contingency. Similarly, 6:101 reinforces this by questioning how the Originator of heavens and could have a absent a consort, excluding any eternal or intermediary in the act of origination. Quran 19:67 explicitly references prior non-existence in human creation—"Does man not remember that We created him before, while he was nothing (min 'adam)?"—extending analogically to cosmic origins and rejecting self-creation or from primordial stuff. This aligns with verses like Quran 52:35–37, which rhetorically challenge alternative origins: "Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain." Such passages affirm Allah's command "Be" (kun) as sufficient for instantiation, as in Quran 36:82. Orthodox schools, including Ash'ari and Maturidi , systematize this doctrine to preserve (God's unity) and preclude dualism or Platonic eternal forms coexisting with the divine. Mutakallimun like Al-Ash'ari (d. 936 CE) argued against philosophers' emanation models—such as those of (d. 950 CE) or Ibn Sina (d. 1037 CE), which posited necessary overflow from God's essence—as veering toward creatio ex materia and compromising radical contingency. (d. 1111 CE) critiqued such views in Tahafut al-Falasifa, insisting on temporal origination from nothingness to affirm God's . Debates persisted among early theologians, with some Mu'tazilites and literalist-leaning scholars exploring primordial "elements" or hylomorphic potentials, but the prevailing interpretive tradition rejects eternal matter to maintain creation's absolute dependence on Allah's volition. This framework resolves cosmological puzzles by positing the universe's finite inception, consistent with narrations of divine self-sufficiency prior to manifestation, such as "I was and I desired to be known, so I created creation."

Presence and Analogues in Other Traditions

Ancient Near Eastern and African Perspectives

In ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies, creation typically emerged from primordial chaos or pre-existing elements rather than absolute nothingness. The Babylonian , composed around the late 2nd millennium BCE, depicts the universe originating from the mingling of Apsu (fresh water) and (salt water), primordial deities whose union births younger gods; then defeats Tiamat, splitting her body to form heaven and earth. Similarly, the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic (c. 18th century BCE) portrays gods organizing the world from existing watery abyss and clay, with humanity fashioned from divine blood mixed with earth to relieve the gods' labor. These accounts emphasize divine craftsmanship (creatio ex materia) or combat shaping disorder into order, without positing non-existence prior to creation. Egyptian myths, spanning (c. 2686–2181 BCE) onward, likewise involve from a pre-cosmic state. In the Heliopolitan tradition, the god arises from , the inert primordial ocean, and generates the world through self-creation via speech, spitting, or masturbation, producing Shu (air) and (moisture) to separate sky from earth. The Memphite theology, inscribed on the (c. 710 BCE, copying earlier texts), attributes creation to Ptah's thought and word acting upon existing elements, but still within a framework of eternal divine essence and chaos. No Egyptian text endorses creatio ex nihilo; instead, the cosmos is organized from undifferentiated potentiality, reflecting a cyclical view where matter and gods are co-eternal aspects of reality. Sub-Saharan African traditions exhibit diverse analogues, often prioritizing emergence or divine imposition on pre-existing voids or elements over pure ex nihilo origination. Yoruba cosmology (documented from oral traditions preserved since at least the 19th century CE) begins with Olodumare, the supreme being, existing above a formless watery expanse; Obatala descends on a chain with sand and a rooster to form solid land at Ife, populating it with clay figures animated by Olodumare's breath. This earth-diver motif implies creation through transformation of watery chaos, not absolute nothing. Among the Dogon of , Amma the creator vibrates a primordial seed into a (c. 3rd millennium BCE in traditional reckoning), from which twins emerge to structure the world, blending ex nihilo-like initiation with chaotic gestation. These narratives highlight relational divine acts amid potentiality, lacking the absolute ontological rupture of creatio ex nihilo found in later Abrahamic doctrines.

Eastern Religions and Philosophies

In , cosmological accounts emphasize cyclical manifestation rather than a singular act of creation from absolute nothing. The Rig Veda's (10.129) speculates on primordial origins, stating that neither existence nor non-existence prevailed initially, with no clear affirmation of creatio ex nihilo; instead, it culminates in about ultimate causation, attributing knowledge only potentially to a "seer" who might comprehend the origins. Later texts like the describe the universe as an emanation or projection from , an eternal, undifferentiated reality, with Prakriti (primordial matter) as co-eternal substance undergoing transformation through divine agency, such as Brahma's role in periodic creation and dissolution within endless kalpas lasting 4.32 billion years each. This contrasts with ex nihilo by positing pre-existent potentiality rather than divine will conjuring contingent matter from void. Buddhist traditions reject any notion of creation from nothing, viewing the universe as beginningless and governed by (dependent origination), where phenomena arise interdependently from causes and conditions without a prime mover or initial void. The doctrine of (emptiness) asserts that all entities lack inherent, independent existence, emerging from relational processes rather than a foundational act; cosmological cycles of formation, duration, dissolution, and repeat eternally across kalpas, with no empirical or scriptural endorsement of ex nihilo. Theravada and texts, such as the Abhidharmakośa, describe world-systems arising from collective karma and subtle elements, underscoring impermanence (anicca) over origin from nothingness. Taoist philosophy offers a partial analogue in the (chapter 40), which states: "The ten thousand things under heaven are born of what is there, and what is there is born of what is not," suggesting emergence from wu (non-being) as a dynamic, yielding process aligned with the 's spontaneous way. However, this non-being denotes an undifferentiated, potential state intrinsic to the eternal —an impersonal principle—rather than absolute nothingness overcome by willful transcendence, differing from Abrahamic formulations by implying immanent generation without a creator's or contingency of matter. Confucian thought, focused on ethical order, provides scant , deferring to ancestral or heavenly patterns without explicit origination from void. Jainism parallels these views with eternal substances (dravya) like souls and matter undergoing transformation via karma, absent any ex nihilo doctrine; creation myths involve primordial chaos ordered by Tirthankaras, but the is uncreated and infinite. Overall, Eastern traditions prioritize eternal recurrence, interdependence, or emanation from formless unity over a punctiliar divine act from nothingness, reflecting causal continuums unbound by linear beginnings.

Indigenous and Non-Abrahamic Spiritualities

In indigenous spiritualities, narratives of creation rarely align with the strict of creatio ex nihilo, which posits absolute origination without pre-existing substance or potentiality. Instead, most traditions describe the world emerging from primordial chaos, ancestral transformations, or pre-existent elements such as , void-like states, or undifferentiated matter, emphasizing relational and ongoing processes over a singular act of divine divorced from any substrate. This contrasts with Abrahamic formulations by integrating creation into cyclical, animistic cosmologies where spirits, animals, and landscapes co-participate in world-forming. Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime accounts exemplify this approach: ancestral beings, during an eternal "Everywhen," traverse and shape a pre-existing, featureless into its current forms, including rivers, mountains, and , without invoking creation from nothingness. These beings embody laws and essences that persist in the landscape, suggesting transformation of inherent potentials rather than ex nihilo invention; the world is not originated but patterned from an amorphous base. North American indigenous traditions similarly favor emergence or earth-diver motifs. In Salinan cosmology, a vast primordial water covers everything, upon which an eagle deposits dirt fragments on a turtle's shell to grow the , implying organization from watery chaos rather than void. Cherokee narratives involve animals descending from a realm to a watery abyss, where a retrieves mud to expand into , highlighting cooperative from pre-conditions. Even stories starting with a "dark void," as in Ojibwe accounts where Kitche arises from nothingness to create, frame the process within an animistic continuum of spirits and relations, not isolated divine causation. African indigenous perspectives show variation, with some high gods like Nzambi (Bantu) or depicted as originating the world without specified materials, offering loose analogues to ex nihilo. However, these often blend with myths of cosmic eggs, descent from realms, or ancestral shaping, prioritizing communal harmony and vital forces over absolute novelty; scholars caution against over-equating them with biblical models due to embedded relational dynamics. In Siberian and other animist systems, creation involves separating unified realms (e.g., from ) or heroic , presupposing initial wholeness rather than nullity. Overall, these traditions underscore causal continuity and embedded agency, rendering pure creatio ex nihilo an outlier.

Philosophical and Theological Implications

Resolution of Cosmological Problems

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo resolves the metaphysical problem of infinite temporal regress by asserting that the universe possesses a finite past, originating from a singular divine act without antecedent material or events, thereby precluding an actual infinite series of prior causes that philosophers such as deemed incoherent due to the impossibility of traversing an infinite duration to reach the present. This contrasts with Aristotelian models of an eternal cycling through endless changes, which necessitate unresolved explanatory regress, as each event requires a prior efficient cause . By positing God's transcendence over time and space, the doctrine establishes the Creator as the uncaused first cause, halting the regress at a necessary being whose eternal does not depend on temporal succession. It further addresses the Leibnizian question of why contingent reality exists rather than absolute nothingness by grounding the universe's origination in the sovereign will of a necessary, self-existent God, who freely brings all being into existence without reliance on preexistent substrates, thus explaining the contingency and finitude of the cosmos as dependent on divine volition rather than brute fact or eternal matter. This avoids the explanatory inadequacy of materialist accounts, where something persists eternally without sufficient reason, and aligns with causal realism by attributing existential causation to an immaterial agent capable of initiating being ex nihilo, unencumbered by prior conditions. Early Christian formulations, developed against Gnostic and Platonic views of demiurgic formation from chaos, emphasized this absolute origination to affirm God's omnipotence and the universe's total dependence, preventing dualistic implications of co-eternal principles. In resolving these issues, creatio ex nihilo also counters problems of cosmic order and unity by attributing the coherence of physical laws and initial conditions to intentional divine causation, rather than emergent properties from indeterminate primordial stuff, which would lack teleological grounding. Theological proponents argue this framework provides a unified causal for the universe's , avoiding the fragmentation of explanatory regress or the inexplicability of nothingness, while maintaining empirical compatibility with of a cosmic beginning, such as the universe's expansion from a low-entropy singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

Critiques of Coherence and Necessity

Critics of creatio ex nihilo challenge its logical coherence, arguing that the notion of deriving from absolute non- violates fundamental principles of and . In classical metaphysics, influenced by Aristotelian categories, creation typically involves an efficient cause acting upon a substrate; positing no such substrate leads to the of being emerging unmediated from pure privation, akin to an effect without potentiality for realization. This renders the doctrine incoherent, as "nothing" lacks properties to be acted upon, effectively conflating divine volition with while evading explanatory regress only through stipulation of God's . Theological detractors, particularly from open and relational perspectives, further contend that creatio ex nihilo undermines coherence by implying God's absolute unilateral control over all contingencies, which conflicts with observed creaturely and the persistence of genuine novelty. , for instance, argues that the doctrine's attribution of originary power to God without relational preconditions portrays divinity as capable of coercive origination, yet this power's alleged exercise fails to preclude or disorder, exposing an internal contradiction between asserted and empirical reality. Such views prioritize causal realism, where effects trace to prior conditions, over fiat-based exemptions, suggesting the concept imports unverifiable metaphysical assumptions to preserve theism's explanatory scope. Regarding necessity, proponents claim creatio ex nihilo is essential to affirm God's transcendence and avoid dualistic eternal matter, but critics counter that it overreaches scriptural warrants and philosophical requirements. Biblical texts like Genesis 1:1-2 depict God shaping a pre-existent "formless and void" state (tohu wa-bohu), implying organization of chaos rather than absolute origination, a reading echoed in Second Temple literature predating the doctrine's formalization around the 2nd century CE to refute Gnostic cosmogonies. This historical contingency indicates the doctrine's emergence as a polemical construct, not an inherent theological imperative, as alternatives—such as emanation from divine essence or sustenance of semi-eternal substrates—adequately secure monotheistic sovereignty without invoking non-being. Moreover, the necessity argument falters under scrutiny of alternatives that resolve cosmological puzzles without ex nihilo, such as Platonic demiurgic formation or Aristotelian eternal cosmos under divine influence, which maintain causality without absolute beginnings. Modern process theologians like Oord deem it dispensable for , as it exacerbates divine for creation's flaws by eliminating any primordial constraints on God's action. Empirically grounded reasoning reinforces this, noting that conservation laws and observed causal chains favor models of transformation over uncaused novelty, rendering creatio ex nihilo an unnecessary postulate for explanatory adequacy.

Alternatives and Revisionary Views

One prominent alternative to creatio ex nihilo is creatio ex materia, the view that the universe was formed from pre-existing matter or chaos rather than absolute nothingness. This perspective appears in , where Plato's Timaeus depicts the ordering a pre-existent receptacle of chaotic elements into cosmos, emphasizing formation over origination. Similarly, Aristotelian cosmology posits an eternal prime matter shaped by form, rejecting creation from void as illogical since "out of nothing, nothing comes" (ex nihilo nihil fit). In early Jewish and Christian interpretation, some scholars argue Genesis 1:1-2 implies ex materia, with organizing a primordial "formless and void" state (tohu wa-bohu) rather than conjuring existence de novo, a reading supported by Near Eastern parallels like the Babylonian Enuma Elish where shapes the world from Tiamat's body. This contrasts with the ex nihilo doctrine's emergence around 200 CE as a response to Gnostic and Platonic dualism, asserting God's absolute sovereignty without dependency on substrate. In modern theology, process philosophy offers a revisionary framework, particularly through Alfred North Whitehead's metaphysics, where creation involves actual occasions self-constituting from prehensions of prior occasions, not divine fiat from nothing. God functions as the primordial source of possibilities, luring entities toward novelty via persuasive influence rather than coercive power, rendering ex nihilo incoherent with relational becoming. Process theologians like John B. Cobb Jr. extend this to panentheism, viewing the universe as emerging within God's consequent nature, with creation as ongoing co-creation from antecedent realities, avoiding implications of divine unilateralism that could justify violence or caprice. Critics within process thought, however, note this shifts emphasis from God's transcendence to immanence, potentially undermining classical attributes like omnipotence. Revisionary proposals in open and relational further challenge ex nihilo by positing creation from chaos or self-organizing potentials, as advocated by , who argues the implies arbitrary divine control incompatible with love and creaturely agency. Instead, voluntarily creates amidst uncontrollable elements, fostering genuine relationality without predetermining outcomes from void. Such views draw on quantum indeterminacy analogies but prioritize theological coherence, claiming ex nihilo fosters by absolutizing divine will over persuasive . Empirical alignment with eternal matter models in cosmology, like steady-state theories pre-Big Bang acceptance, bolsters these revisions, though they face pushback for diluting scriptural emphasis on initiative.

Scientific Perspectives and Analogies

Alignment with Big Bang Cosmology

The theory, which describes the 's expansion from an initial hot, dense state approximately 13.8 billion years ago, aligns with creatio ex nihilo by establishing an absolute temporal beginning to physical , , and energy, rather than an eternal or cyclical cosmos. This finite origin, supported by evidence such as radiation and the observed Hubble expansion, corroborates the doctrinal rejection of pre-existent , as articulated in theological traditions where divine agency initiates existence without prior material substrate. Proponents like philosopher argue that the standard model, reinforced by theorems such as Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (2003), predicts this beginning, providing empirical grounding for the Kalām cosmological argument's premise that the began to exist and thus requires a transcendent cause. Theological interpreters, including Catholic priest —who proposed the "primeval atom" hypothesis in 1927 as the 's precursor—saw no inherent conflict, emphasizing that the theory delineates the universe's evolutionary dynamics post-creation while leaving the metaphysical origin to divine will. Lemaître distinguished the scientific singularity from absolute nothingness, aligning it with creatio ex nihilo as a description of the created order's inception rather than its uncaused emergence. Similarly, , in a 1951 address to the , referenced cosmology as consonant with Genesis, interpreting the initial expansion as evidence of a Creator bringing order from primordial formlessness. This convergence bolsters creatio ex nihilo against alternatives like steady-state models, which posited an eternal universe and were largely supplanted by evidence by the 1960s. However, the alignment remains interpretive: the delineates physical chronology without prescribing , allowing theologians to posit as the immaterial agent effecting ex nihilo, timeless and independent of the ensuing manifold.

Conflicts with Quantum and Multiverse Theories

Quantum theories, particularly those invoking fluctuations, have been proposed as mechanisms for the emergence of the without a divine creator, ostensibly aligning with or obviating the need for creatio ex nihilo. argued in his 2012 book that permits particles to arise spontaneously from the quantum , suggesting the could originate similarly without external cause. However, this "nothing" is not absolute; the quantum constitutes a dynamic state governed by pre-existing physical laws, quantum fields, and metrics, which presuppose a structured rather than the metaphysical void of creatio ex nihilo. The doctrine requires God's creation of all contingent , including the laws of physics themselves, whereas quantum fluctuations operate within an already instantiated framework of , failing to address the origin of those laws or the vacuum's . Critics from theological and philosophical perspectives contend that such models equivocate on "nothing," smuggling in substantive preconditions that undermine the ex nihilo claim of absolute origination. For instance, wavefunctions describing fluctuations inherently reference existent probabilistic structures, not genuine non-being, as absolute nothing lacks properties to fluctuate. Empirical support for universe-scale quantum tunneling from nothing remains speculative, with no direct observation of such events beyond microscopic scales, and models like Hartle-Hawking's no-boundary proposal introduce mathematical artifices (e.g., imaginary time) without resolving the causal antecedent of the quantum regime. Thus, quantum mechanics challenges creatio ex nihilo only superficially, as it cannot generate reality from true nothingness without invoking uncreated principles, perpetuating rather than resolving the cosmological problem the doctrine addresses. Multiverse theories, such as those arising from eternal inflation or string theory landscapes, posit an infinite ensemble of universes emerging from a primordial quantum foam or false vacuum decay, aiming to explain fine-tuning without design. These frameworks conflict with creatio ex nihilo by implying a pre-existent multiversal generator—often an eternal inflationary field or higher-dimensional bulk—that begets our universe, thereby denying absolute creation from nothing and relocating the origin question to an unexplained substrate. Proponents like Krauss extend this to suggest multiverses could fluctuate into existence, but this again relies on prior quantum laws and vacua, not resolving the ex nihilo requirement for the contingency of all physical possibility. Theological responses emphasize that multiverse hypotheses, lacking empirical and direct evidence (e.g., no detectable cosmic collisions or variant constants), function as metaphysical posits akin to unobservable theological entities, yet without providing . Creatio ex nihilo maintains divine as the uncaused cause, creating not just but the very modal space for , whereas inflationary models assume eternal dynamical laws, evading the doctrine's insistence on God's institution of all existence without prior conditions. This tension highlights a deeper incompatibility: scientific multiverses seek explanatory regress within nature, while ex nihilo posits transcendence beyond it.

Empirical and Causal Critiques

Empirical critiques of creatio ex nihilo center on the lack of observable evidence for any process generating entities from absolute nothingness. Scientific investigations, spanning to cosmology, reveal that all documented emergences—such as virtual particles in quantum vacuum fluctuations or formation in the early —occur from pre-existing conditions, including quantum fields with non-zero or a hot, dense plasma state post-singularity. Absolute nothingness, defined as the total absence of , time, , , and laws, finds no analogue in experimental data, where conservation of energy-mass holds invariantly across tested scales. The doctrine's claim of a singular, divine origination event evades falsification, as it precedes and observable , rendering it incompatible with empirical methodology that prioritizes repeatable verification. No or astrophysical observation, including cosmic microwave background analyses dating to approximately 13.8 billion years ago, indicates a transition from void to plenum without antecedent potency. This uniformity supports the empirical generalization ex nihilo nihil fit, where transformations preserve or redistribute existing quantities rather than conjure them anew. Causal critiques argue that creatio ex nihilo violates metaphysical principles of efficient and causation, as nothingness possesses no properties, potentiality, or substrate to actualize under any efficient agency. objects, per and physical laws, require a cause alongside an efficient one; the , as a spatiotemporal continuum with positive mass- (totaling roughly 105310^{53} kg equivalent), exemplifies this by lacking origination from nullity. , formalized in the first law of and upheld in , precludes uncompensated creation, as the universe's net —potentially zero when is factored—still derives from quantum gravitational frameworks rather than void. Under causal realism, effects cannot exceed the causal antecedents' ; absolute nothing, devoid of causal power, cannot yield existent effects, aligning with observed chains where each link traces to prior actualities. This renders the doctrine incoherent, as divine efficiency alone fails to supply the material substrate evidenced in all causal sequences, from subatomic decays to .

Contemporary Debates and Controversies

Scriptural Fidelity and Historical Accuracy

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo lacks explicit endorsement in the canonical , where Genesis 1:1 describes creating "the heavens and the earth" using the verb bara (to create), a term reserved for divine action but not necessarily implying origination from absolute non-existence. Genesis 1:2 immediately references the earth as "formless and void" (tohu wabohu), with darkness over the deep and the spirit of hovering over the waters, suggesting to many scholars an initial state of unformed matter or chaos rather than utter nothingness. This interpretation aligns with ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies, where creation often involves ordering pre-existent elements, though the biblical text uniquely attributes sovereignty to without rival deities. New Testament passages provide stronger inferential support, such as Hebrews 11:3, which states that "the was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible," and Romans 4:17, depicting God as the one "who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist." These verses emphasize divine initiative over visible precursors, yet they address faith and God's power rather than systematically articulating ex nihilo as a cosmological absolute. The deuterocanonical 7:28 offers the clearest pre-patristic statement—"Look at the heaven and the earth and everything that exists therein; understand thereby that the Lord made them out of things that existed not"—but its non-canonical status in Protestant and Jewish traditions limits its authority for fidelity assessments. Historically, creatio ex nihilo emerged as a formalized doctrine in the late second century AD amid Christian apologetics against Gnostic dualism and Platonic eternal matter. Theophilus of Antioch articulated it around 180 AD in To Autolycus, asserting God brought all things into existence from non-being to refute notions of co-eternal substance. Tatian and Tertullian further developed it by the early third century, responding to philosophies positing matter as uncreated or evil, thereby safeguarding monotheistic transcendence. Prior to this, first-century Christian texts and Jewish intertestamental literature show no uniform commitment to absolute nothingness, often presupposing a formless substrate akin to Genesis 1:2. Critics, including some biblical scholars, argue the doctrine represents a post-biblical synthesis rather than direct scriptural derivation, potentially influenced by anti-Gnostic polemics where figures like Basilides paradoxically invoked non-being first. This development ensured theological consistency with resurrection beliefs and divine omnipotence but introduced specificity absent from original texts, raising questions of interpretive latitude versus fidelity.

Modern Theological Challenges

In contemporary theology, process thinkers such as and challenge creatio ex nihilo by rejecting the notion of God's unilateral , arguing instead that divine power is persuasive and dipolar, involving God's temporal involvement with an eternally existent primordial chaos or potentiality rather than absolute creation from nothingness. This view posits that ex nihilo implies a coercive divine sovereignty incompatible with genuine creaturely freedom and relationality, as God cannot override the inherent creativity of the universe's basic elements. Theologian , drawing on essential models, critiques ex nihilo for exacerbating problems, contending that if creates everything from absolute nothing—including the capacities for and —divine becomes untenable, as it suggests God authored destructive possibilities without necessity. Oord advocates alternatives like creatio ex creatione, where God persistently creates through and with existing entities, preserving uncontrolling love as a core attribute without implying divine unilateral control over all contingencies. Revisionary proposals in eco-theology and further question ex nihilo's adequacy, viewing it as overly transcendent and dualistic, which allegedly fosters anthropocentric dominion over nature rather than interdependence; proponents like Sallie McFague argue for a creation model emphasizing and ongoing divine sustenance within the . These challenges, articulated in works since the late , prioritize relational over classical metaphysical absolutes, though defenders maintain ex nihilo safeguards God's and freedom from creaturely dependence.

Atheistic and Materialist Objections

Atheists and materialists contend that creatio ex nihilo violates the longstanding philosophical maxim ex nihilo nihil fit, which holds that existence cannot arise from non-existence absent a material or causal precursor. emphasized that no empirical observation supports creation from absolute , dismissing theistic appeals to a divine originator as unwarranted speculation lacking evidential basis. Philosopher extends this critique, arguing that an absolute void precludes not only matter but also logical principles like ex nihilo nihil fit itself; thus, theistic positing of a transcendent creator to bridge to something constitutes , as the creator's own eternal existence evades the very causal constraints imposed on the universe. David Hume's empiricist skepticism further erodes confidence in such doctrines by questioning the inductive foundation of causality: observed constant conjunctions of events do not necessitate an unobservable first cause, allowing the universe's contingent order to stand as a without divine origination. Materialist objections highlight incompatibilities with physical laws, particularly the conservation of mass-energy, which empirical experiments consistently uphold and which creatio ex nihilo would suspend via unverified means. Sean Carroll argues that the universe's low-entropy initial state and fine-tuning can emerge naturally from or models, obviating any need for a non-physical creator and aligning with predictive successes of naturalistic cosmology over ad hoc theological interventions. Proponents like invoke to demonstrate how virtual particles routinely "emerge" from vacuum fluctuations—governed by Heisenberg's —suggesting that cosmic scales could analogously produce universes from a physically defined "nothing" (empty with inherent laws), thereby rendering divine ex nihilo an unnecessary supplanted by testable mechanisms. These views prioritize causal closure within , where all phenomena trace to prior physical states, rejecting creatio ex nihilo as an empirically unparsimonious intrusion that fails to resolve origins while introducing an unexplained entity.

References

  1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvpg86fq
  2. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1626&context=msr
  3. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-2
  4. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1980/JASA3-80Craig.html
  5. https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/creatio_ex_nihilo_the_problem
  6. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/creatio-ex-nihilo_n
  7. https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268102531/creation-ex-nihilo/
  8. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/christianity-other-faiths/creatio-ex-nihilo-a-critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creation-conservation/
  10. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/
  11. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/
  12. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/
  13. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-5
  14. https://thejosias.com/2023/12/13/ex-nihilo-nihil-fit-and-creatio-ex-nihilo-science-and-creation/
  15. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nbfr.12603
  16. https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/14545/
  17. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/225/enuma-elish---the-babylonian-epic-of-creation---fu/
  18. https://biologos.org/articles/genesis-1-and-a-babylonian-creation-story
  19. https://smarthistory.org/creation-myths-and-forms-of-the-gods-in-ancient-egypt/
  20. https://www.glencairnmuseum.org/newsletter/2021/7/13/ancient-egyptian-creation-myths-from-watery-chaos-to-cosmic-egg
  21. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/
  22. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Topics/philosophy/_Texts/COPHP/24%2A.html
  23. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Maccabees%207%3A28&version=NABRE
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/creatio-ex-nihilo-in-palestinian-judaism-and-early-christianity/9300DEB2E6CF2C81A89FC619928DCA42
  25. http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2020/05/2-maccabees-728-wisdom-1117-and.html
  26. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:3623a255-d2bb-49ed-88b4-57bc8c80fc26
  27. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/historic-age-debate-creation-ex-nihilo-part-3-of-4
  28. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/context/mi/article/1066/filename/12/type/additional/viewcontent/Ancient_views_of_creation_and_the_doctrine_of_creation_ex_nihilo.pdf
  29. https://earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html
  30. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/st-anselm-s-philosophy
  31. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/literature-and-writing/monologion-and-proslogion-saint-anselm
  32. https://academic.oup.com/book/3371/chapter/144459340
  33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44080311
  34. https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/terms-of-the-divine-art-aquinas-on-creation/
  35. https://rbecs.org/2010/12/19/markus-bockmuehl-%25E2%2580%259Cjewish-and-christian-origins-of-creatio-ex-nihilo%25E2%2580%259D/
  36. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/creation-and-the-god-of-abraham/creatio-ex-nihilo-its-jewish-and-christian-foundations/08D38BE798EDA1E7BAAAA2D88E95E876
  37. https://shs.cairn.info/journal-etudes-theologiques-et-religieuses-2024-2-page-313?lang=en
  38. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/b83db64c-6adc-4752-aec1-d1bd5e85af0c/content
  39. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/medieval-philosophy-and-theology/article/maimonides-arguments-for-creation-ex-nihilo-in-the-guide-of-the-perplexed/EE26307333A1B7F0D64A555170E81F23
  40. https://biologos.org/articles/creation-ex-nihilo
  41. https://learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/creation-ex-nihilo
  42. https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/god-creation-understanding-interplay-creatio-ex-nihilo-creatio-continua/
  43. https://ms.fortresspress.com/downloads/9781506406862_Excerpt%2520from%2520Chapter%25201.pdf
  44. https://www.agathos-international-review.com/issues/2018/16/Pricopi.pdf
  45. https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268102548/creation-ex-nihilo/
  46. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94330/is-creatio-ex-nihilo-accepted-theology-for-all-mainstream-christian-denomination
  47. https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/dhqgjv/creatio_ex_nihilo_in_the_east/
  48. https://credomag.com/2023/05/the-doctrine-of-creation-ex-nihilo-why-does-it-matter/
  49. https://philarchive.org/archive/GALCEN-2
  50. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/peterson/2021-07-08/23_daniel_c._peterson_does_the_quran_teach_creation_ex_nihilo_584-610.pdf
  51. https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/22/three-ancient-near-eastern-creation-myths/
  52. https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/epic-of-creation-mesopotamia
  53. https://mhcc.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/sites/28/2021/02/ENG250_YorubaCreationMyth.pdf
  54. https://www.gateway-africa.com/stories/Dogon_Creation_Myth.html
  55. https://www.creationmyths.org/rigveda-10-129-indian-creation/rigveda-10-129-indian-creation-8-brereton-translation.htm
  56. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1035&context=honors
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11797750/
  58. https://brownbeat.medium.com/daodejing-chapter-40-being-and-non-being-a4741d3d1919
  59. https://philarchive.org/archive/ZAPTMO
  60. https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/6302/17496
  61. https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/rethinking-the-study-of-african-indigenous-religions/
  62. http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/religion/DREAMTIME1.pdf
  63. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/13220/galley/26817/download/
  64. https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/the-new-world/indian-creation-stories/
  65. https://www.native-art-in-canada.com/creationstory.html
  66. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-4/doctrine-of-the-holy-spirit/doctrine-of-creation-part-6-objections-to-creatio-ex-nihilo
  67. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=math_fsp
  68. https://existenceofgod.org/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-creation-ex-nihilo/
  69. https://regentinterface.com/resource/creatio-ex-nihilo-and-the-sciences-an-interview-with-yonghua-ge/
  70. https://www.academia.edu/48505243/The_Search_for_the_Convergence_of_the_Absolute_Beginning_and_the_Doctrine_of_Creatio_ex_Nihilo
  71. https://philarchive.org/archive/FELTPO-20v1
  72. https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/reject-creation-nothing
  73. https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/final-unconvincing-reasons-affirm-creatio-ex-nihilo
  74. https://www.crivoice.org/exnihilo.html
  75. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religious-studies/article/an-alternative-to-creatio-ex-nihilo/A7DE589783DEC999DD6E985D4F5C91D4
  76. https://www.openhorizons.org/did-god-create-the-world-out-of-nothing-ask-john-cobb.html
  77. https://philarchive.org/rec/EDWHPT
  78. https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/creatio-ex-nihilo-and-creation-care
  79. https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/
  80. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-natureof-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument
  81. https://biologos.org/articles/georges-lemaitre-the-scientist-and-priest-who-could-conceive-the-beginning-of-the-universe
  82. https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/a-big-bang-was-not-the-beginning/
  83. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2017/03/12/two-priests-a-pope-and-the-big-bang/
  84. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/a-universe-from-nothing-a-critique-of-lawrence-krauss-book-part-2
  85. https://shenviapologetics.com/do-quantum-fluctuations-show-that-something-can-come-from-nothing/
  86. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-7
  87. https://catholicstand.com/creatio-ex-nihilo-theology-versus-physics/
  88. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-ofgod/has-the-multiverse-replaced-god/
  89. https://philarchive.org/archive/FELTPO-20
  90. https://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/en.post.religion-science.html
  91. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/f48ayq/creation_ex_nihilo_and_1st_law_of_thermodynamics/
  92. https://answersresearchjournal.org/genesis/genesis-doctrine-creatio-ex-nihilo-1/
  93. https://repository.upenn.edu/entities/publication/5e90cd8d-bc84-4d2f-9165-ddd8e2aa8ac1
  94. https://www.religion-online.org/article/how-process-theology-can-affirm-creation-ex-nihilo/
  95. https://theology.nd.edu/news/creation-ex-nihilo-origins-development-contemporary-challenges-edited-by-gary-a-anderson-and-markus-bockmuehl/
  96. https://afterall.net/quotes/bertrand-russell-on-creation-out-of-nothing/
  97. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14486
  98. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/
  99. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.