Ex Nihilo: A Definitive Report on the Concept of Creation from Nothing

Introduction

The question of origins—"Why is there something rather than nothing?"—stands as one of the most profound and persistent inquiries in the history of human thought. It marks the intersection of faith, reason, and empirical observation, compelling each discipline to confront the ultimate limits of its explanatory power. The attempt to answer this question has given rise to a fascinating and often contentious dialogue spanning millennia, centered on the enigmatic concept of creation from nothing. This concept, however, is not a monolithic idea. It is a complex tapestry woven from three distinct intellectual traditions, each with its own language, logic, and foundational assumptions.

The first is the theological doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, a cornerstone of the Abrahamic faiths, which posits that a transcendent God brought the universe into being from no pre-existing materials by a free act of will.1 The second is the classical philosophical axiom ex nihilo nihil fit—"from nothing, nothing comes"—a principle that asserts the impossibility of being arising from non-being without a cause, forming the bedrock of metaphysical inquiry into causality.3 The third is the modern scientific narrative of cosmic origins, which employs models like the Big Bang and quantum fluctuation to describe the emergence of the universe from physical states that challenge our intuitive understanding of both "creation" and "nothing".5

The central thesis of this report is that any meaningful exploration of "creation from nothing" must first disentangle these traditions. The primary source of confusion and interdisciplinary conflict lies in the profound ambiguity of the word "nothing" itself.7 To the theologian, it is an absolute void, its possibility defined only by the plenitude of God's being. To the philosopher, it is a logical paradox, a concept that strains the limits of language and reason. To the physicist, it is a physical state—the quantum vacuum—teeming with potential and governed by immutable laws. To navigate this complex landscape, the following definitional framework provides a conceptual map that will guide the analysis presented in this report.

Discipline

Definition of "Nothing"

Core Concept / Principle

Key Proponents / Texts

Theology

The absolute absence of all reality, contingent and necessary, except for the being of God. A state of non-being prior to a divine creative act.1

Creatio Ex Nihilo: A transcendent, omnipotent God creates the universe without pre-existing materials, by a free act of will.1

Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, Theophilus of Antioch; The Bible, The Quran.

Philosophy

A state of absolute non-being; a logical void. The concept is fraught with linguistic and logical paradoxes.3

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit: "From nothing, nothing comes." Being cannot arise from non-being without a cause. Change requires a pre-existing substrate.3

Parmenides, Aristotle, Lucretius; Proponents of the Cosmological Argument.

Physics

The quantum vacuum: the lowest energy state of a quantum field, characterized by vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles. It is a physical state, not an absolute void.3

Quantum Fluctuation: The universe may have emerged spontaneously from a pre-existing quantum state, not from absolute nothingness. This is a transition between physical states.5

Georges Lemaître, Alexander Vilenkin, Lawrence Krauss; The Big Bang Theory, Cosmic Inflation.

By examining each of these frameworks in detail, this report will illuminate the history, logic, and implications of one of humanity's most audacious ideas: that all of existence was, in some sense, born from nothing.

Part I: The Theological Framework of Creatio Ex Nihilo

The doctrine that God created the universe "from nothing" is a central tenet of the major monotheistic religions. However, far from being a simple or self-evident interpretation of scripture, creatio ex nihilo is a sophisticated theological construct that emerged over centuries. Its development was driven less by a need for a literal cosmogony and more by the necessity of defining the nature of God in opposition to competing worldviews. The doctrine's primary function is to establish God's absolute sovereignty, transcendence, and the radical dependence of all reality upon Him.

Section 1.1: Origins and Doctrinal Development: A Polemical Innovation

A careful examination of the historical and textual evidence reveals that the concept of creatio ex nihilo was not the original understanding of creation within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Instead, it represents a significant doctrinal innovation that appeared suddenly in the second century CE as a specific and powerful response to the prevailing philosophical and religious ideas of the Greco-Roman world.17

The majestic opening of the Book of Genesis, while affirming God as the creator, does not explicitly teach creation from absolute nothingness. Genesis 1 describes God's spirit moving over the face of the waters and bringing order to a world that was "untamed and shapeless" or "formless and void".10 This depiction of God organizing a pre-existing, chaotic state aligns closely with many ancient Near Eastern creation myths, which understood creation as an act of ordering or shaping—a concept known as creatio ex materia (creation from matter).19 The Hebrew verb used for creation, bara, can signify shaping or fabricating, and does not inherently mean to originate from an absolute void.21 Many biblical scholars today concur that the earliest biblical accounts are concerned with God assigning roles and functions to the cosmos, not with the metaphysical origin of matter itself.10

The explicit articulation of creatio ex nihilo emerged in the latter half of the second century with Christian apologists such as Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch.10 This was a revolutionary step, standing in firm opposition to the dominant philosophical schools of the time, which almost universally held that matter was eternal and uncreated.17 This doctrinal development was not an arbitrary reinterpretation but a necessary theological defense against two major intellectual challenges: Gnosticism and Hellenistic philosophy.

Gnosticism, a diverse set of religious movements, often taught a dualistic cosmology where the material world was not the creation of the supreme, good God, but was fashioned from pre-existing (and often inherently evil) matter by a lesser, flawed deity known as the demiurge.24 By asserting that the one true God created everything, including matter itself, from nothing, Christian theologians could affirm the fundamental goodness of the physical world and reject any notion of a rival creative power.26 Similarly, the prevailing Greek philosophical view, particularly from Aristotle, was that matter was eternal and uncreated.23 This implied the existence of a reality that was co-eternal with and independent of God. Such a view would fundamentally limit God's power and sovereignty; He would be more of a divine artisan, constrained by the properties of His materials, rather than an omnipotent creator.4

Thus, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo must be understood in its original polemical context. It is less a scientific statement about cosmic origins and more a profound theological declaration about the nature of God and His relationship to reality. It establishes a radical and absolute distinction between the uncreated Creator and a wholly contingent and dependent creation. By affirming that God created "from no prior materials" 1, the doctrine asserts His absolute power, His freedom from all external constraints, and His position as the sole source of all being. This reframes the modern debate between science and religion; if the doctrine's core purpose is metaphysical, concerning God's unique status, then scientific discoveries about the physical mechanisms of the universe's origin do not necessarily contradict it, as they are addressing fundamentally different categories of explanation.

Section 1.2: Creation in the Abrahamic Traditions: A Shared Foundation

Despite its complex origins, creatio ex nihilo became a foundational doctrine for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The medieval Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides went so far as to claim it was the only teaching that all three traditions unequivocally shared, underscoring its importance in defining a common Abrahamic understanding of God as the ultimate, sovereign creator.2

In Judaism, while early rabbinic texts display some ambiguity on the matter 20, the doctrine was eventually cemented as a core principle, most notably through the philosophical work of Maimonides in The Guide of the Perplexed. He argued that belief in creation was an essential "foundation of the Torah".28 For Maimonides, rejecting creatio ex nihilo in favor of an eternal universe would undermine the very basis of divine law and the possibility of miracles, as it would subject God to the fixed nature of an independent reality.28 The doctrine powerfully underscores God's omnipotence and absolute transcendence, establishing that all of existence is contingent upon His will.29 This theological principle has direct ethical implications, forming the basis for concepts like Tikkun Olam ("repairing the world"), which posits a human responsibility to act as stewards of a creation brought into being by God's deliberate act.29

In Christianity, the doctrine was adopted early and formally promulgated as official church teaching at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, which declared that God, "from the beginning of time has created both orders in the same way out of nothing".23 Theologians like St. Augustine developed the concept with great philosophical depth, emphasizing that God did not simply reshape existing substance but spoke the universe into being through His Word.1 The doctrine is considered a "hinge doctrine" because it connects the truth about God's eternal being with the truth about His works in the world.26 It has profound implications across Christian theology: it affirms the goodness of the material world (ruling out the heresy that matter is evil), it demonstrates God's unlimited power, and it provides the foundation for belief in the resurrection of the dead. The apostle Paul makes this connection explicit in Romans 4:17, describing God as the one who "gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist".26 Other New Testament passages, such as Hebrews 11:3 ("what is seen was not made out of things that are visible"), are also interpreted as direct scriptural support for the doctrine.8

In Islam, the Quran provides a strong foundation for creatio ex nihilo. God (Allah) is repeatedly described with names that signify His status as the sole source of being, such as Al-Badi' (The Originator) and Al-Awwal (The First).31 The term badi' specifically connotes creating something novel and without precedent, directly implying creation from nothing.31 The famous Quranic phrase kun fa-yakūn ("Be, and it is"), which appears in multiple verses, symbolizes the effortless and absolute power of the divine will to bring reality into existence without any material cause, intermediary, or effort.21 While some verses describe God creating with materials such as clay or water 21, mainstream Islamic theology, especially within the kalam tradition, understands these as secondary acts of creation within a universe that was itself originated ex nihilo by God's singular command.34 The doctrine thus serves to affirm God's complete self-sufficiency and absolute freedom as creator.21

Section 1.3: Internal Critiques and Theological Nuances

Despite its foundational status, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is not without its internal challenges and theological complexities. Debates over its scriptural basis, philosophical implications, and relationship to other divine attributes have persisted within the Abrahamic traditions.

One of the most significant theological challenges is the problem of evil. Critics argue that a God possessing the absolute, unilateral power required to create the entire universe from nothing would surely also possess the power to prevent genuine evil without violating creaturely freedom.19 If God can bring matter, energy, and physical law into existence from a state of absolute non-being, it seems He could intervene to prevent gratuitous suffering. From this perspective, the existence of such suffering makes a loving God who operates with this kind of power culpable for failing to prevent it.19 This critique has led some theologians to reject creatio ex nihilo in favor of models where God's power is persuasive rather than coercive, working with a reality that has some degree of inherent autonomy.19

Furthermore, there remains a persistent counter-interpretation of scripture, advanced by many modern biblical scholars, which argues that the texts do not support creatio ex nihilo. This view contends that the doctrine was a later imposition on the biblical narratives, which more naturally describe a process of creatio ex materia—God bringing order to a pre-existing chaos.18 Proponents of this view point to Genesis 1:2, as well as passages in Psalms and Job, that depict God battling or taming chaotic waters, a common motif in ancient Near Eastern mythology.19 This scholarly consensus challenges the traditional orthodox reading and suggests that the primary biblical concern was with God's establishment of a functional, ordered cosmos rather than the metaphysical origin of substance.

Finally, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is often complemented and nuanced by the concept of creatio continua, or continuous creation. First articulated by early Church Fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Origen, this idea posits that God's creative act is not confined to a single moment at the beginning of time.9 Rather, creation is an ongoing process in which God actively sustains all of existence at every instant. Were God to withdraw His creative power for even a moment, the universe would immediately cease to be, lapsing back into the nothingness from which it was called.2 This shifts the focus of the doctrine from a temporal origin event to the radical, moment-by-moment dependence of all reality on God's sustaining will. It emphasizes that creation is not a past event but a continuous relationship between the Creator and the creature.

Part II: The Philosophical Challenge of Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit

In stark contrast to the theological affirmation of creation from nothing, Western philosophy has been dominated by an opposing principle, encapsulated in the Latin axiom ex nihilo nihil fit: "from nothing, nothing comes." This idea, far from being a mere historical curiosity, represents a fundamental norm of rational inquiry that underpins our understanding of causality, change, and the very intelligibility of the natural world. Exploring this principle reveals not only a profound challenge to the concept of absolute beginning but also a surprising path toward arguments for the existence of a first cause.

Section 2.1: The Classical Prohibition on Non-Being

The philosophical prohibition against something arising from nothing has its roots in the very beginnings of Western metaphysics. It was the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides (5th century BCE) who first articulated the core logical problem.3 He argued that "nothing" is an impossible and incoherent concept. His reasoning was that to think or speak of a thing, that thing must, in some sense, exist. One cannot logically conceive of "what is not." Therefore, he concluded that non-being is an impossibility, and as a corollary, true coming-into-being from non-being cannot occur.12 For Parmenides, reality must be an eternal, unchanging monolith.

While later philosophers rejected Parmenides' radical conclusion that change is an illusion, they largely accepted his foundational principle. Aristotle provided a framework that would dominate Western thought for centuries, arguing that all change is a transition of a pre-existing substrate from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality.3 A block of marble (the substrate) has the potential to become a statue; the sculptor's act makes that potential actual. In this model, nothing is ever created from an absolute void; there is always an underlying "something" that is being changed.3

The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius, in his work De Rerum Natura, gave the principle its most famous Latin formulation, ex nihilo nihil fit.3 He argued that this axiom was a key stepping stone to understanding nature and its laws. Objects cannot spontaneously appear without a reasonable cause; matter is required to create matter, just as specific seeds are required to grow specific plants.3 This principle became deeply embedded in the Western intellectual tradition as an intuitively obvious truth and a prerequisite for scientific inquiry. If things could pop into existence uncaused from nothing, the search for causes and explanations that defines science would be rendered meaningless.4 It establishes a fundamental norm of rational inquiry: for any event, there must be something from which it happened.36

Section 2.2: Causality and the Cosmological Argument

Paradoxically, the philosophical principle that "nothing comes from nothing" does not necessarily lead to atheism. In fact, it has historically served as a crucial premise in some of the most influential arguments for the existence of God. The apparent tension between ex nihilo nihil fit and creatio ex nihilo is resolved when one recognizes that the philosophical axiom is primarily a statement about causation.

The principle is the driving engine behind various forms of the cosmological argument, particularly the Kalam cosmological argument, which has seen a revival in contemporary philosophy of religion.14 The argument's logic is straightforward:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (This is a direct application of ex nihilo nihil fit).

2. The universe began to exist. (This premise is supported by both philosophical arguments against an actual infinite past and scientific evidence from Big Bang cosmology).

3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.36

This "uncaused cause" or "first cause," which stands outside the chain of natural causality, is then identified with God.14 In this context, the two ex nihilo phrases are not contradictory but complementary. Ex nihilo nihil fit asserts that something cannot come into being from nothing uncaused.37 Creatio ex nihilo does not violate this principle; it affirms it. The doctrine posits that the universe came into being from no pre-existing material, but it was brought into being by a cause—namely, God.4 God, as pure being, is the sufficient cause for the existence of the universe. Thus, the theological doctrine does not propose an uncaused event; it proposes an event caused by a transcendent, non-material agent.

This distinction, articulated with great clarity by medieval thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, separates two different kinds of causation. The first is the causation of change, where an agent acts upon existing material (a material cause). This is the realm of science and Aristotelian physics, and here, ex nihilo nihil fit holds absolutely. The second is the causation of being itself, where an agent brings something into existence in its entirety (an efficient cause). This is the metaphysical act of creation. The failure to distinguish between these two types of causation is the source of much of the confusion in the modern debate. Science studies the processes of change within the created order, but metaphysics and theology address the ultimate question of why that order, with its causal laws, exists at all.4

Section 2.3: Logical Paradoxes and Modern Rebuttals

The concept of "nothing" is notoriously treacherous, fraught with logical and linguistic paradoxes that have challenged philosophers for centuries. The very act of discussing "nothing" seems to violate the logic it purports to describe. This is known as the paradox of negative existentials.13 To make a meaningful statement like, "'Nothing' exists," or "'Pegasus' does not exist," one must refer to a subject—"nothing" or "Pegasus." But if the subject can be referred to, it must in some sense exist, which makes the statement self-contradictory.13 This linguistic trap arises from treating the quantifier "no thing" as if it were a noun, "Nothing," a proper name for some strange entity.38

This inherent difficulty has led some modern philosophers to challenge the classical axiom of ex nihilo nihil fit on logical grounds. Philosopher Richard Carrier, for instance, argues that the principle itself is not a logically necessary truth but a contingent physical law that applies within our universe.39 He posits a state of absolute nothingness—a state with no matter, no energy, no space, no time, and no laws. In such a state, there would be no "law" of ex nihilo nihil fit to prevent something from coming into being.40

Carrier's argument attempts to turn the classical view on its head. If there were truly absolute nothing, there would be a complete absence of constraints. Since there would be nothing to prevent it, the spontaneous emergence of something would not only be possible but perhaps even probable.39 This line of reasoning suggests that the existence of "something" might be the default state of affairs, while a state of stable, perpetual "nothing" would require some kind of force or law to maintain it. In this view, the universe doesn't need a cause to bring it into existence from nothing; rather, the state of "nothing" is inherently unstable and naturally gives way to "something".40 This radical critique, while controversial, highlights that the intuitive self-evidence of ex nihilo nihil fit may be a product of our experience within a cosmos governed by physical laws, and it may not apply to a hypothetical state that precedes law itself.

Part III: The Cosmological Perspective on a Universe from "Nothing"

In the 20th century, the ancient debate over creation from nothing moved from the realms of theology and philosophy into the domain of empirical science. Modern cosmology, with its powerful mathematical models and observational evidence, has constructed a new and compelling narrative of cosmic origins. This scientific perspective has provided what many see as stunning corroboration for traditional views, while simultaneously introducing novel concepts that challenge and redefine the very terms of the debate.

Section 3.1: The Big Bang and the Beginning of Time

For most of human history, the idea of an eternal, unchanging universe held sway, from the philosophies of ancient Greece to the scientific consensus of the 19th century.23 This changed dramatically in the early 20th century. In the 1920s, solutions to Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, formulated independently by Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman and Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître, predicted an expanding universe.6 This theoretical prediction was soon given powerful empirical support by the observations of American astronomer Edwin Hubble, who showed in 1929 that distant galaxies are receding from us at speeds proportional to their distance.6

The implications of an expanding universe were profound. If the cosmos is growing larger and less dense today, then extrapolating backward in time leads to a past that was progressively smaller, denser, and hotter. This logic points to an ultimate beginning, a moment of unimaginable density and temperature from which the expansion began. Lemaître, who was also a Catholic priest, called this initial state the "primeval atom".6 This concept, later dubbed the "Big Bang," suggested that the universe had a finite past and a temporal origin.23

The Standard Big Bang Model describes not just an explosion in space, but the very beginning of space and time itself.5 At the initial cosmological singularity, all matter, energy, space, and time came into being. As physicist P. C. W. Davies notes, the singularity forms a "past temporal extremity to the universe," beyond which physical reasoning cannot continue.23 In this model, it is meaningless to ask what happened "before" the Big Bang, because the concept of "before" requires time, which did not yet exist.5

This scientific conclusion was received by many theologians and religious philosophers as a remarkable confirmation of the biblical doctrine of a temporal creation ex nihilo.23 For the first time, a robust scientific theory, supported by multiple lines of evidence such as the cosmic microwave background radiation and the abundance of light elements, pointed to an absolute beginning of the universe.6 Science, which had long favored an eternal cosmos, now seemed to align with the theological claim that the universe was not eternal but had been brought into being at a specific point in the finite past.23

Section 3.2: The Quantum Genesis: Creation from a "Physical Nothing"

While the Standard Big Bang model points to a beginning, more recent developments in quantum cosmology have complicated this picture, suggesting a "creation" from a physical state that is both something and nothing. The theory of cosmic inflation, proposed in the 1980s, posits a period of exponential expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang.16 This inflationary epoch explains key features of our universe, such as its large-scale uniformity and geometric flatness, and suggests that our observable universe is just a small patch of a much larger reality.42

Inflationary cosmology shifts the ultimate origin question to what came before and what powered inflation. The answer may lie in the nature of "empty space" at the quantum level. According to quantum field theory, a vacuum is not a true void. It is the lowest energy state of a physical system, a "sea" of roiling energy characterized by constant quantum fluctuations.5 From these fluctuations, pairs of "virtual" particles and antiparticles can spontaneously emerge, exist for a fleeting moment, and then annihilate each other, all in accordance with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.5 This quantum vacuum is not the absolute nothingness of philosophy or theology; it is a physical reality with a complex structure, governed by the laws of quantum mechanics.7

Some cosmological models propose that the entire universe may have originated as a large-scale quantum fluctuation within such a pre-existing quantum state.15 In this scenario, a tiny bubble of "true vacuum" could have spontaneously formed and, under the right conditions, undergone exponential inflationary expansion to become the universe we see today.5 Mathematical frameworks like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation attempt to describe the wave function of the entire universe, treating space and time as emergent properties rather than fundamental entities.5 These theories describe a universe that could emerge spontaneously, without a singular starting point or an external creator, from a pre-existing quantum reality.5

Section 3.3: The Great Semantic Debate: A Dialogue of the Deaf

The rise of quantum cosmological models has ignited a contentious modern dialogue, often characterized by profound semantic confusion. When physicists like Lawrence Krauss publish books with titles such as A Universe from Nothing, they are often accused by philosophers and theologians of a bait-and-switch.7 The "nothing" of the physicist is the quantum vacuum—a state devoid of particles, perhaps, but one that is still a "something" defined by physical laws, quantum fields, and the potential for existence.44

From a philosophical perspective, this is a far cry from the absolute non-being of creatio ex nihilo. The critique is that these scientific theories do not explain creation from a true void. Instead, they describe a transition from one physical state (a quantum vacuum) to another (an expanding universe).5 They provide a potential answer to the question, "What was the physical precursor to the Big Bang?" However, they leave the deeper metaphysical question untouched: "Why is there a quantum vacuum governed by the laws of physics in the first place?".44

This reveals a fundamental disconnect in the conversation. The scientific narrative has not eliminated the need for a metaphysical explanation of origins; it has simply displaced the question. The ultimate mystery is no longer the origin of matter and energy from a singularity, but the origin of the timeless, transcendent physical laws and quantum fields that would permit such a singularity to emerge. The "something" that requires an ultimate explanation has shifted from the visible cosmos to the underlying mathematical and physical framework that makes a cosmos possible. This pushes the dialogue back into the realm of metaphysics, where questions of a "law-giver," a "fine-tuner," or a necessary being re-emerge in a new, more abstract, and perhaps more resilient form. Science has powerfully redefined the "something" that exists, but it has not, and perhaps cannot, answer the ultimate question of why there is something rather than absolute nothing at all.

Conclusion: A Synthesis of Perspectives

The inquiry into "creation from nothing" is not a single question with a single answer but a complex problem space where distinct intellectual traditions converge on a shared mystery. The journey through theology, philosophy, and cosmology reveals that the meaning of this foundational concept is contingent on the framework used to investigate it. The apparent contradictions that fuel so much of the modern debate often dissolve upon closer inspection into differences of definition and category.

The theological doctrine of creatio ex nihilo emerged not as a literal cosmogony but as a profound metaphysical statement about the nature of God and reality. Its purpose is to affirm the absolute sovereignty of a transcendent Creator and the complete dependence of the created order. It posits a beginning not as a mere physical event but as a free and deliberate act of will, bringing being from absolute non-being. It is an answer to the question "By whom?" and "For what purpose?"

The philosophical principle of ex nihilo nihil fit, in contrast, is a statement about the logic of causality and the intelligibility of change. It asserts that within the realm of being, every effect must have a cause, and every transformation requires a pre-existing substrate. Far from refuting theism, this axiom forms the very foundation of cosmological arguments for a First Cause, seeking an ultimate answer to the question "From what?" or "Why is there a causal chain at all?"

Modern cosmology offers a third perspective, providing an empirical narrative of cosmic origins. The Big Bang theory gave scientific weight to the idea of a temporal beginning, while quantum fluctuation theories propose a mechanism for the emergence of the universe from a pre-existing physical state—the quantum vacuum. This scientific "nothing" is not the absolute void of theology but a complex reality governed by physical law. Cosmology answers the question "How did the universe as we know it begin?"

Synthesizing these perspectives, as outlined in the definitional framework at the outset of this report, leads to a more nuanced understanding. The conflict between a universe created ex nihilo by God and the principle that nothing comes from nothing is largely resolved by distinguishing between the origination of being itself (a metaphysical act) and the transformation of existing things (a physical process). Similarly, the claim that science has explained a "universe from nothing" is seen to be a semantic confusion, as it redefines "nothing" to mean a physical something. Science has not answered the philosopher's question of why there is something rather than nothing; it has redefined "something" to include the very laws of physics and quantum fields whose existence now demands an explanation.

Ultimately, the question of creation from nothing remains a fertile and essential ground for human thought precisely because it forces a confrontation between our most fundamental concepts: being and non-being, cause and effect, law and chance. It is not a problem to be definitively solved by any single discipline, but rather a profound and enduring mystery that invites theology, philosophy, and science into a necessary and ongoing dialogue about the ultimate nature of reality.

Works cited

1. Creation ex nihilo: early history (Chapter 1) - Creation and the God ..., accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/creation-and-the-god-of-abraham/creation-ex-nihilo-early-history/09906C7D3B8398A42EF1F49EAE53470C

2. Creatio ex nihilo: Its Jewish and ... - Scholars@Duke publication, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://scholars.duke.edu/publication/1426776

3. Nothing comes from nothing - Parmenides, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.parmenides.me/nothing-comes-from-nothing

4. 'Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit' and 'Creatio Ex Nihilo': Science and Creation - The Josias, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://thejosias.com/2023/12/13/ex-nihilo-nihil-fit-and-creatio-ex-nihilo-science-and-creation/

5. The Emergence of the Universe Through Quantum Fluctuations | by ..., accessed on October 26, 2025, https://medium.com/@kosmologi.indonesia/the-emergence-of-the-universe-through-quantum-fluctuations-9e331de0c53d

6. Big Bang - Wikipedia, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

7. What is nothing? - Philosophy Stack Exchange, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/23400/what-is-nothing

8. Four Kinds of Nothingness - Grace Communion International, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.gci.org/articles/four-kinds-of-nothingness/

9. Understanding the Interplay Between Creatio Ex Nihilo and Creatio Continua, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/god-creation-understanding-interplay-creatio-ex-nihilo-creatio-continua/

10. Creatio ex nihilo - Wikipedia, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo

11. en.wikipedia.org, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing#:~:text=Nothing%2C%20no%2Dthing%2C%20or,for%20nothing%20to%20%22exist%22.

12. Nothing - Wikipedia, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

13. Nothingness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), accessed on October 26, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

14. Ex Nihilo - Thomistic Philosophy Page, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://aquinasonline.com/ex-nihil/

15. medium.com, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://medium.com/@kosmologi.indonesia/the-emergence-of-the-universe-through-quantum-fluctuations-9e331de0c53d#:~:text=For%20years%2C%20physicists%20have%20speculated,dimensions%2C%20matter%2C%20and%20energy.

16. The strongest evidence for a Universe before the Big Bang, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/evidence-universe-before-big-bang/

17. Creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) - FAIR Latter-day Saints, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Creation_out_of_nothing_(creatio_ex_nihilo)

18. Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought - BYU ScholarsArchive, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1626&context=msr

19. Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Problem · For The Love of Wisdom and The ..., accessed on October 26, 2025, https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/creatio_ex_nihilo_the_problem

20. Markus Bockmuehl, “Jewish and Christian Origins of Creatio ex Nihilo”, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://rbecs.org/2010/12/19/markus-bockmuehl-%E2%80%9Cjewish-and-christian-origins-of-creatio-ex-nihilo%E2%80%9D/

21. Does Allah create things ex nihilo? : r/AcademicQuran - Reddit, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/196a0ii/does_allah_create_things_ex_nihilo/

22. What is the Biblical basis for the idea of 'creation ex nihilo'? - Christianity Stack Exchange, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94085/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-idea-of-creation-ex-nihilo

23. Creation ex nihilo: Theology and Science | Popular Writings | Reasonable Faith, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-natureof-god/creation-ex-nihilo-theology-and-science

24. Creation Out Of Nothing—A Biblical, Philosophical And Scientific Exploration, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/creation-out-of-nothing-a-biblical-philosophical-and-scientific-exploration/

25. History of creatio ex nihilo - Christianity Stack Exchange, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94634/history-of-creatio-ex-nihilo

26. The Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo: Why Does It Matter? - Credo ..., accessed on October 26, 2025, https://credomag.com/2023/05/the-doctrine-of-creation-ex-nihilo-why-does-it-matter/

27. Does the Qur'an Teach Creation Ex Nihilo? - Book of Mormon Central Archive, accessed on October 26, 2025, 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

28. Maimonides' Arguments for Creation Ex Nihilo in the Guide of the ..., accessed on October 26, 2025, https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/b83db64c-6adc-4752-aec1-d1bd5e85af0c/content

29. Creation ex nihilo - (Intro to Judaism) - Vocab, Definition ... - Fiveable, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://fiveable.me/key-terms/introduction-to-judaism/creation-ex-nihilo

30. What Does “Ex Nihilo” Mean? - Ligonier Ministries, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/what-does-ex-nihilo-mean

31. Proving God as the First Cause: Creation Ex Nihilo and the Origin of ..., accessed on October 26, 2025, https://thequran.love/2025/07/17/proving-god-as-the-first-cause-creation-ex-nihilo-and-the-origin-of-everything/

32. The Quran and Creation Ex Nihilo: Is This God Speaking or Muhammad?, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://thequran.love/2024/02/26/the-quran-and-creation-ex-nihilo-is-this-god-speaking-or-muhammad/

33. Does the Quran teach creation ex nihilo and does this affect its message of monotheism?, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1l0e4nh/does_the_quran_teach_creation_ex_nihilo_and_does/

34. Four conceptions of creatio ex nihilo and the compatibility questions (Chapter 7) - Creation and the God of Abraham - Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/creation-and-the-god-of-abraham/four-conceptions-of-creatio-ex-nihilo-and-the-compatibility-questions/0CFE746FE417A0D7F03577BAA41BFF2F

35. Ex nihilo nihil fit | Lightbringers: A Philosophy Journal, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://lightbringers.net/content/ex-nihilo-nihil-fit

36. Is “ex nihilo nihil fit” used as an argument for the existence of God? Or something else? : r/askphilosophy - Reddit, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1fdibnf/is_ex_nihilo_nihil_fit_used_as_an_argument_for/

37. Doctrine of Creation (Part 6): Objections to creatio ex nihilo - Reasonable Faith, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-6

38. The Metaphysics of Nothing | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/metaphysics-of-nothing/

39. Richard Carrier's response to "ex nihilo, nihil fit" : r/askphilosophy - Reddit, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/d9zxxh/richard_carriers_response_to_ex_nihilo_nihil_fit/

40. The Problem with Nothing: Why The Indefensibility of Ex Nihilo Nihil ..., accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14486

41. Creation ex nihilo: Theology and Science | Popular Writings ..., accessed on October 26, 2025, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/creation-ex-nihilo-theology-and-science

42. Cosmic History - NASA Science, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/

43. Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

44. Can theory of nothing challenge God? - The Philosophy Forum, accessed on October 26, 2025, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12061/can-theory-of-nothing-challenge-god