Creatio ex Nihilo: Theology versus (?) Physics*

Bob Kurland

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Gen 1:1-2 (KJV)

“The laws of nature themselves tells us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton and have required nothing in terms of energy but also that it is possible that nothing caused the big bang.” Professor Steven Hawking (Discovery Channel broadcast)

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.” G.K. Chesterton

“My reasons for presenting the ideas underlying a modern scientific theory stem rather from a belief that philosophy and theology are indeed the ‘queen of sciences’ (emphasis added) and, as such, are charged with the awe-inspiring task of overseeing all modes of enquiry and of cohering them in a unity of vision that is both emotionally and intellectually satisfying.” Chris Isham “Creation as a Quantum Process” in Physics, Philosphy and Theology

“We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely “out of nothing”: If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.” Catholic Catechism 296.


The Hebrew for “formless and void” in Genesis 1:1 is “tohu-bohu” or “tohu va vo-hu”. A scholar in Hebrew (as a distinguished from a Hebrew scholar—this guy was a retired Irish physician) told me that the real translation of “Tohu Bohu” was topsy-turvy, a mess, confusion. That would be more in accord with notion held by many physicists that Creation arose from quantum fluctuations.

So, where did “ex nihilo” come from? One citation from the Old Testament can be used to justify this:

“I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.” 2 Maccabees 7:28, KJV

And in the New Testament:

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. Hebrews 11:3

The first Christian writer to promote the doctrine of “Creatio ex nihilo” was Theophilus of Antioch in the late 2nd Century, who wrote:

” . . . but then they (the Platonists) maintain that matter as well as God is uncreated, and aver that it is coeval with God. But if God is uncreated and matter uncreated, God is no longer, according to the Platonists, the Creator of all things, nor, so far as their opinions hold, is the monarchy of God established. And further, as God, because He is uncreated, is also unalterable; so if matter, too, were uncreated, it also would be unalterable, and equal to God; for that which is created is mutable and alterable, but that which is uncreated is immutable and unalterable. And what great thing is it if God made the world out of existent materials? For even a human artist, when he gets material from some one, makes of it what he pleases. But the power of God is manifested in this, that out of things that are not He makes whatever He pleases.” Theophilus of Antioch, Letter to Autolycus

It’s a long quote but well expressed (note the points taken up in the Catechism). Theophilus was contesting the view of Greek philosophers, Platonists, neo-Platonists, that the universe was eternal, that a demi-urge had created it from pre-existing stuff. Theophilus’s theologic cudgel was wielded against the Gnostics by later Christian theologian/philosophers and fully developed by St. Augustine.

It was St. Augustine who developed arguments about time, that time could have begun with creation, which is a view remarkably in accord with much of modern cosmology.

” . . . no time passed before the world, because no creature was made by whose course it might pass.” St. Augustine, City of God bk 11, ch.4.

As Keith Ward puts it:

“For Augustine, God brought about time and space as well as all the things that are in them. Just as God did not create space at a certain place, but non-spatially caused all places to exist, so God did not create time at a certain moment, but non-temporally caused all time to exist.” Keith Ward, Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature.

Note that Ward’s interpretation above does not require a first moment of time, a “t=0”, although Augustine did accept, on the basis of Revelation, that the Universe (which to him was much smaller than our conception) had a definite beginning.

St. Thomas Aquinas also contended against the Greek philosophers’ version of Creation. He agreed with Aristotle that creation required a First Cause, which Aristotle called the Prime Mover and which Aquinas called God. However, he believed that only Revelation, not reason, could assert that Creation began at an instant in time:

“By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist … it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 46

Even though the world might be eternal, Aquinas maintained that God’s creative agency would be and is continually active, as a creatio continua.

Time Issues

Before discussing the positions on creatio ex nihilo taken by contemporary theologians, I should briefly comment about the forms “time” might take in a cosmological description of the evolution of the universe, and whether “creatio ex nihilo” requires a beginning, an instant in time about which we can say this is t=0, and there is no t<0.***

Our ordinary understanding of a universal time is confounded by the prescriptions in special and general relativity. Special relativity requires that the time of an event depends on the frames of reference of the object and observer; thus, an event A might be in the future for observer X in one frame of reference and in the past for observer Y in a different frame.

A further complication is found in general relativity, gravitational time dilation. To take these complications into account, spacetime is divided into space-like slices, for which some proper time, t, is assumed to be the same everywhere in the slice. This proper time can be replaced by another parameter (varying with time) such as R (the radius of the universe) which is constant in a slice.

The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics introduces still another complication: uncertainty in time x uncertainty in energy > h/(2pi). This means that to specify t=0 exactly there would have to be an infinite uncertainty in the energy of the system.


Now to consider the positions taken by contemporary theologians (including physicists and philosophers who put forth theological arguments): for the most part these are reactive to various cosmological theories about the origin (or non-origin) of the universe. I’ll focus on the Big Bang (t=0) hypothesis and the Hartle-Hawking model (no beginning). The list of theologians cited is not exhaustive but drawn mainly from various articles in Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature. Also, if we ask whether the universe had a beginning or existed eternally, and we believe in God as Creator, then there is another hidden question (which I’ll not discuss). If God is eternal and timeless, how does God act in a world that progresses in time; in other words, what can we say about the temporality of God? This question is addressed in Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature by several of the authors.


The Big Bang hypothesis confirms creatio ex nihilo by showing the Universe began at a definite time (t=0): William L. Craig, Ted Peters.**

The Big Bang hypothesis might be true, but it is also possible that the Universe could be eternal, with creatio continua by God: George F.R. Ellis**, Richard Swinburne, Keith Ward**

The Big Bang hypothesis and cosmology, for one reason or another, are not all that relevant to theological ideas about creation: William Alston**, Ian Barbour** (in Robert John Russell’s article), Karl Barth, Wilhelm Drees**, Arthur Peacocke**(in Robert John Russell’s article), William Stoeger**

The Hartle-Hawking model offers theologic possibilities (see Summary below): Wilhelm Drees**, Chris Isham**, Robert John Russell**.


The science/physics of creation is not all that settled with respect to creatio ex nihilo, either as a beginning in/of time or as a component of creatio continua. In terms of treatments of General Relativity (GR), the FLRW model yields a singularity at R=0 (t=0), the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem shows that singularities are generally found as solutions of the GR field equations, and the Borde-Guth-Velenkin theorem demonstrates for classical relativity, if the Universe has an average non-zero expansion, it has to have a beginning. But in the domain near R=0, t=0, quantum gravity theory has to be invoked—but there is no theory of quantum gravity.

Moreover, none of the theories based on quantum mechanics have empirical support. In the Hartle-Hawking model the introduction of the imaginary, it, to replace the time variable, t, in the general equation for the universe wave-function (if such were to exist) is arbitrary, done only for aesthetic reasons (to remove a singularity). Robert J. Russell and Chris Isham claim that the Hartle-Hawking model is consistent with creatio continua, with nothing at the boundary of the closed universe. The universe then is created at its boundary of a space-time slice. Robert J. Russell also argues that a finite universe is consistent with Creation theology, even if there is no definite beginning (as in Hawking’s argument that the south or north pole is not the beginning of the earth.) I don’t understand that argument. George F.R. Ellis points out that Hawking’s argument that the universe  was caused by nothing other than gravity, is not correct since the Hartle-Hawking model includes “(pre-existent  Hilbert spaces, quantum operators, Hamiltonians,etc.) whose existence is if anything more mysterious than that of the universe itself.” (Quoted by Robert J. Russell**).

My Take

Although the science/physics/cosmology of creation is not altogether settled, there is definite empirical evidence for a creation event, a “Big Bang” if you will: the red shift showing an expanding universe; the COBE microwave background radiation showing burnt embers of an initial epoch; the hydrogen/helium ratio and lack of carbon-12 in early stars; and the more recent B-mode COBE results showing effects of early inflation.

Theologians seem to be wary about falling into a “God of the Gaps” pit, using the deity to explain what science cannot. That fear I believe is unfounded. At some point a God of the Gaps argument has to be introduced, as a prime mover, to explain why there is a science illumined by mathematical theory. There are theological and philosophical issues that are not yet (and may never be) settled: What is time? Does God change with time, or is He eternally fixed and, if so, how does He act in time? Perhaps we should keep in mind the aphorism of St. Thomas Aquinas: “It is not that God is irrational but that our understanding is limited.”

Finally, I’m not sure whether the theologians and scientists have improved very much, if at all, on the insights of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas. Faith and revelation give insight. The arguments of the Catechism are as forceful now as they were when first propounded by Theophilus of Antioch.


*This piece was not taken from the article by Ellis, but has been scrounged from various sources (see below and links in the post). For background material, please see my posts Philosophic Issues in Cosmology

1: Introduction or Creation:What Science Can or Cannot Say, Philosophic Issues in Cosmology 2: Relativistic Theories for the Origin of the Universe ,Philosophic Issues in Cosmology 3: Mathematical Metaphysics–Quantum Mechanical Models for Early Stages of the Universe.

**Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature (click on the icon for the book and then on the right for chapters).

***Objections have been made to the use of t=0 as a “beginning” since arbitrary mathematical mappings can change t=0 to t = – infinity (logarithmic transform) or t=+ infinity (inverse transform). I don’t consider such objections to be substantive, since they are artificial–we don’t perceive the passage of time in a logarithmic or inverse transform way, although as any husband knows who has waited for his wife to finish shopping, the subjective passage of time is not necessarily linear.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

20 thoughts on “Creatio ex Nihilo: Theology versus (?) Physics*”

  1. Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION |

  2. Your article contains this quote, which I feel has not received the attention it
    deserved – namely the priority of the philosophical foundation for any
    reasoning process: philosophy and theology are indeed the ‘queen of sciences.’

    Already Leibniz, the philosopher-scientist had stated
    succinctly that “everything has a sufficient cause.” Now that science has lead
    us to the notion of the “Big Bang” we have another element that ancient Greek
    thinkers did not have when they wrote on the universe. It is clear, as far as science
    can tell, that it is only at the moment of the “big bang” that we can say that
    matter and time began. What could be the sufficient cause of such a reality as
    the big bang? Pope John Paul II wrote a book entitled ”Crossing the Threshold
    of Hope” that I think is highly useful in this discussion. He described God
    (following St. Thomas Aquinas) as “being itself subsisting” or “autonomous
    existence.” Clearly here we have a
    spiritual and necessary being (i.e. requiring no other cause for his own
    existence) who is the only possible sufficient cause for the big bang as we
    understand it. Otherwise we have a reality (the big bang) with no sufficient
    cause, which goes against the common sense of everyday logic and a long philosophical tradition.

  3. Theologians seem to be wary about falling into a “God of the Gaps” pit, using the deity to explain what science cannot. That fear I believe is unfounded. At some point a God of the Gaps argument has to be introduced, as a prime mover, to explain why there is a science illumined by mathematical theory.

    Where does it say that the intelligence behind all this (which only a fool would deny exists) has to be a god? Zeus is a god. None of us would call the intelligence behind all this “Zeus”. Could it be that there is no acceptable word for the intelligence behind all this and that the only way to convey the idea of its existence is to actually call it “the intelligence behind all this”?

    What people typically mean when they say “God” is the main character in the Bible. Some see the Bible as the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. That is why we swear on the Bible to tell the Truth.

    That being the case, would the intelligence behind everything walk and talk as with its meetings with Adam and Abraham or in its instructions to Noah. Would it appear in a burning bush to Moses and part the Red Sea. Would it have a chosen people and an only begotten son who would be sacrificed to it for atonement of transgressions by our ancestors?

    It just doesn’t seem likely that the intelligence behind everything, which is examined and studied by scientists, is accurately described in a book compiled from writings from thousands of years ago. That just doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.

    1. Bill, What St. Thomas Aquinas means by “God” in the Five Ways is not necessarily the God of Revelation. There could be, as you suggest, a God who started things up and then stood back and watched. Belief in such a God is called “deism” and was followed by many in the 18th Century after the so-called Enlightenment. The personal God of Christianity (and the New Testament and Old) is one perceived by faith in Revelation. So, your point is well taken if one was to mistake or replace a “God of the Gaps” by the God shown by Revelation. If one does by faith believe in that God of Revelation, then He is also the God of the Gaps, the Creator.

    2. If one does by faith believe in that God of Revelation, then He is also the God of the Gaps, the Creator.

      The Revelation would mean that God wrote the Bible by inspiring the writers to accurately describe him. That, I can’t believe.

    3. I respect your right to non-belief and would concur with your statement were the term “accurately” omitted. I’m not sure the prophets and apostles could be regarded as dictating machines, recording accurately the words God wanted them to say…indeed in all of Holy Scripture there are problems of translation…go to for the Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1-2 to see what kinds of ambiguity there might be. And we have to remember the message the prophets and sages spoke to people in their times would not be what we would find on TV commercials now. Nevertheless, I do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, even though there are parts of the Old Testament with which I may not agree or find hard to understand. (See )

    4. All the above neglects the fundamental message of the Old Testament: that God has chosen his people Israel, the children of Abraham, to be a light unto the world, that he is a forgiving and loving God, who over and over again has forgiven them for straying from him.

      The intelligence behind all that is, which many would call “God”, does not seem like a being who would have to make itself known to us in quite this manner. It is being understood by the human race one scientific discovery at a time. We know more about it each generation.

    5. Bill, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that God would not make himself known to us all of a sudden, in a Revelatory way, but through a process of gradual discovery, as is done in science. I can only reply our knowledge of God by Revelation has changed from the Old Testament to the New–witness the quote from Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) and that theology, tradition, does change our knowledge of God (which will, nevertheless, never be complete) with time–witness Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas… the three great “A”s.
      Thanks for your comment.

    6. I believe that the great mystery that we try to understand and that many of us call “God” is a kind of unexplainable intelligence that controls a process that ultimately results in our intelligence. We know how genes strive to make reproductions of themselves. It is as if this intelligence intended to create an awe inspiring universe and an intelligence that would perceive and appreciate it. The source is an intelligence and the end product is an intelligence. The next step is for this created intelligence to create the next generation of intelligence, which I assume would be a self replicating artificial intelligence of some sort. I think the intelligence that we see as our creator might have kind of programmed into the laws of nature a tendency for us to try to know us through a religion that would evolve through survival of the fittest. Christianity was the fittest for two thousand years but I think it will be replaced by scientism. As it was a sect of Judaism that was seen as a heresy, scientism is being looked at as a heresy. So I guess I am a heretic.

    7. Bill I agree with part of what you say, that the universe is created by an intelligence which we can only understand partially. I disagree that Christianity will be replaced by a faith in Science as totally explaining everything, because science is very limited in what it can explain; for example it can’t explain itself. (Neither can God, but God has other faculties.) See my other posts about the limits of science (no uppercase):
      “Tipping the Sacred Cow of Science–Confessions of a Science Agnostic” at
      “Which Is Real–Science or God”
      Show less

    8. I disagree that Christianity will be replaced by a faith in Science as totally explaining everything, because science is very limited in what it can explain

      What would you say is something explained by Christianity but not by Science? I would also say that much of religion can be safely replaced with more secular counterparts in various fields and disciplines and that we all could continue to live purposeful and fulfilling lives without religion of any kind whatsoever.

    9. Here are some things that aren’t explained by science: esthetics, ethics, and why we are here.
      In particular, love, music, beauty, and why we are here.

    10. I don’t think nonreligious people are missing anything about love, music, beauty, and why we are here.

    11. I get a lot of that. Please don’t get me wrong. We all owe a great debt to Christianity. I shudder to think what it would be like without it. But I think it can be replaced with secular humanism for those who don’t believe in the supernatural. I just happen to be one of those nonbelievers. It doesn’t mean I don’t respect people like Fr. Jaki, Stacey and yourself.

    12. Secular humanism shot down a civilian jet liner yesterday. So you’ll pardon me if I don’t get too excited about its glorious conquest of our culture.

    13. Say what? I don’t think those idiots could be described as humanists. And how do you know they aren’t Russian Orthodox or something? And what if they have no religious affiliation? Is that what drove them to shoot down a passenger plane that they probably thought was a cargo plane? Geez, you are really grasping at straws.

    14. Fr. Jaki said, and I (and Stacy Trasancos) continue to aver, science is limited to that which is quantifiable, i.e. measurable in numbers. It is limited to that which is verifiable or falsifiable by repeated measurements…again, see the previous posts I’ve put up.

    15. science is limited to that which is quantifiable, i.e. measurable in numbers.

      I have read many books about science and I hardly pay attention to quantities. It is more about concepts.

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.