Creatio Ex Nihilo vs Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit

Is everything created from something? If yes, then where did ‘something’ come from? Creatio ex nihilo (Latin for “creation out of nothing”) is a philosophical and theological doctrine that affirms that God created the world out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit (Latin for “out of nothing, nothing comes”) is a philosophical principle that states that nothing can come from nothing. The two concepts are often used in discussions about the origin of the Universe.

But before I can attempt to find the answer to the question of which doctrine makes more sense, I must first understand what ‘creation’ is. Can matter be created? Or destroyed? Or is it simply energy manifesting itself in space and time?

Einstein solved the mystery by giving us an equation for this relationship: E = mc2. This means that energy (E) is equal to mass (m) times the speed of light squared (c2). So, the matter is really just a form of energy. And theoretically, if we have the right conditions, matter can be created from energy. And according to the Big Bang Theory, that’s exactly what happened. The Universe was created out of a very dense and hot state of energy that expanded and cooled, creating the matter that we see today.

Creatio Ex Nihilo vs Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit

So, where did THAT energy come from? What caused that energy? Or, if everything has a cause, WHO caused that energy?

So, if the Universe had a beginning, then there must have been a cause for that beginning. The cause must be something that is not part of the Universe. It has to pre-exist and CAUSE the universe. And since the Universe is physical, the cause of its beginning must also be non-physical.

So, what could a non-physical cause of the Universe be? It could be something like a God, or it could be something like the laws of physics. But if it is the laws of physics, then what caused those laws to come into existence?

This is where the concept of ex nihilo nihil fit comes in. If everything that exists has a cause, then there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. There must be something that exists without a cause, something that is the uncaused first cause. And that uncaused first cause is what we call God.

This is why I believe that ex nihilo nihil fit itself supports the claim of creation ex nihilo.

Creatio Ex Nihilo

Also, if the matter can be neither created nor destroyed, then how can the Universe have a beginning? If it has no beginning, then there must be an infinite amount of matter in the Universe. But an infinite amount of matter would produce an infinite gravitational force, which would cause the Universe to collapse in on itself. So the Universe cannot be infinite. Therefore, it must have had a beginning.

So, this is where the ‘time’ factor comes in. When we refer to something as ‘before’ or ‘after,’ we are essentially referring to time. If there is no time, then there is no ‘before’ or ‘after.’ And if there is no ‘before’ or ‘after,’ then the Universe cannot have a beginning.

Is time also a creation? I believe so. It began with the universe and will end with it. Just like matter (energy) and space.

These three ingredients came into existence together. Because if there is no space, where will you put the matter? If there is no time, when will you put the matter in space? And if there is no matter, what will you put in space and when?

So if matter, space, and time are created together, who created them? It doesn’t matter what you call that creator. But one thing is for sure he is beyond space, matter, and time. He cannot exist within three factors or be affected (limited) by them.

And that, my friends, is why Creatio Ex Nihilo makes more sense to me than Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit.

Please feel free to leave your comments and thoughts below. I would love to hear what you have to say about this topic.

Creatio Ex Nihilo vs Ex Nihilo Nihil

1 thought on “Creatio Ex Nihilo vs Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit”

  1. I would love to leave a comment. I disagree with your view that creatio ex nihilo and ex nihilo nihil fit are compatible.

    Firstly, you assume that Energy was caused. I see no reason to believe this, nor do I see a reason to believe space was caused either. My personal view is that time/motion and change are illusory. So I hold to a Parmenidean view of reality and I do not believe Aristotle and Plato were able to solve Parmenides’ Paradox because to do so, they had to assume time was real, in any case, temporality has to do with becoming, not being anyways.

    Secondly, you assume “If it has no beginning, then there must be an infinite amount of matter in the Universe.” This is a non-sequitur. There is no reason to believe in infinites. Rather there is a finite amount of energy. However, assuming that matter is quantitative assumes a form of logical atomism but this simply assumes Existence Pluralism. Whereas, Substance Monism can be true. Dare I say, there are good reasons to support the view that Neutral Existence Monism is also possible, since Existence itself must be a brute fact.

    So I think your argument hinges on the assumption that the Universe has a beginning but The Universe can simply be a tautology for Existence (i.e. Everything that exists).

    Lastly, you stated that Creatio Ex Nihilo makes more sense to me than Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit but this is also illogical. Creatio Ex Nihilo contradicts Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit. For if God is a mental substance (a Mind), then where did Matter, Space and Time come from? How can a substance that is distinct from mind come from mind? Also, how do the substances interact? Also, why think the Universe is only matter, space and time? Do you not have a mind that is distinct from matter, space and time?

    If a substance can create a distinct substance, it must be a part of that substance but then the initial substance would be a composite of both substances but then we reach back to the initial problem how do two distinct substances interact. See Hume’s Dictum. Therefore, if the Universe was from/part of God, then Panentheism would follow but Panentheism is special pleading since it simply assumes a substance over and above what we already know exists in reality without being able to give a description of what that is. If Pantheism is true, then God is simply tautological, vacuous and redundant. God = Existence and we are not separate from Existence. Existence cannot be created, Existence is a brute fact.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *