Big Bang and Creatio Ex Nihilo

The purpose of this paper is to explain how the Big Bang cosmology relates with the Christian doctrine – creation out of nothing. I sectioned this paper into three parts. First, I will discuss the basis of creation out of nothing, its history, the biblical basis, and some recent critiques regarding this doctrine through other creation views. Second, I will explain the Big Bang cosmology, focusing on the “very beginning” of the universe. Third, I will explain the flaws in the Big Bang cosmology in relating with creation from nothing and discuss two views: that creatio ex nihilo complements Big Bang cosmology, and that Big Bang cosmology is not related at all to creatio ex nihilo.

The doctrine of creation from nothing was probably first mentioned by Bishop Theophilus of Antioch in the year 180 as he wrote to a pagan, “God brought everything into being out of what does not exist, so that his greatness might be known and understood through his works” (McFarland 1). This doctrine might be based on the classical theism that “God is the act of existence – God IS” (Oord 42) and because God is – the very essence of existence, then He can create everything – from non existence. Yet, this doctrine actually has no explicit biblical references other than Genesis 1, Romans 4:17, Hebrew 11:3, and 2 Maccabee 7:28, which we cannot rely on completely to explain that the universe was created from “nothing”. Theologians, therefore, turn their focus to the gospel John 1:1-3. Through this, theologians can argue that it was through the Word that God created everything. “Nothingness”, in this sense, can therefore be interpreted as Word and not matter, because the Word was God.

Ian McFarland in his book From Nothing: A Theology of Creation, explains three phrases: “nothing but God”, “nothing apart from God”, and “nothing limits God” (87) in attempt to interpret creation from nothing. The first phrase, nothing but God, based on John 1:1-2 and Psalm 33:6, emphasizes the fact that it was the Word, which is ultimately God, and the breath (Spirit) of God as the “nothingness” that created everything in the beginning (McFarland 91). The second phrase, nothing apart from God, focuses on the fact that the creation although created by, is only subsisted by the Logos of God – the Word (McFarland 96). The creation – logoi, therefore, is not capable of “being” apart from God – Logos. Third, nothing limits God because God is the “sole antecedent” in the creation.

In recent years, the doctrine creatio ex nihilo has been highly criticized because of the lack of biblical proofs and the theory that “nothing can be created from nothing” (Oord 41). In the book Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals, three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim, outline some critiques regarding creatio ex nihilo. One view, creation from chaos in which a Hebrew scholar, Jon D. Levenson argues that the creation account in Genesis 1-2 along with Psalm 82 and 74 describe God as bringing order to the world that was not in order(chaos). Also he argues that in Genesis, God was “arranging things in a useful pattern” (Oord 87) instead of just creating something out of nothing.

Another view is creatio ex Potentia in which God acts persuasively through creativity and novelty. The view that God does not determine everything that will be created in the creation, but instead provide possibilities for the creation (Oord 51) to be creative. There are many other views on creation such as: creatio ex Profundis(creation from out of the boundless), creatio ex Deo(creation out of God’s own being), creatio ex Amore(creation out of love), and many more. But as stated in the beginning of this paper, I will only explain the relationship between Big Bang cosmology and creation from nothing.

According to New Oxford American Dictionary, Big Bang is defined as, “The rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe”. In this part, I will not explain the entire big bang cosmology and its mathematical equation, instead, I will focus mainly on the beginning or starting point of the big bang cosmology. Most scientists adopt the assumption that in the very beginning, the universe (which was not yet formed) was in a vacuum state – no matter existed, but it was not completely empty. The theory proposed that the universe was “pregnant” with a very small potential energy. Because of quantum fluctuation (Matt 19), the small energy started to expand (heat). It was in the form of a bubble (Matt 19) that continued to expand due to heat which then, when it cooled down, formed protons and neutrons which later on became atoms (Matt 20). The formations of atoms caused a continuation in heat expansion. These atoms, when cooled down, then started the whole formation of the universe: stars, moon, planets, and so on. The big bang of the universe is therefore a process of expansion, formation of matter when cooled down, the matter then form more matter which produced heat, and so on until the whole universe was formed. Through this theory, scientists concluded that the universe started to form some fifteen billion years ago (by calculating the rate of energy expansion). The idea that because the universe was vacuum in the very beginning (and through a small bubble of energy formed the whole universe), to some theologians, this theory is most likely the scientific explanation of creation from nothing – a vacuum.

Under the understanding that the universe was created from a vacuum state and then developed into matter, Charles Kingsley, an Anglican Clergy, perceived this theory that not only had God created the world, but that He created a “self-making” world from nothing (Polkinghorne 40). The trinitarian metaphysics suggests that God created the world from nothing and also gave the world potential to create itself (Polkinghorne 40). Unfortunately, the big bang cosmology does not really explain the absolute beginning of the universe (Burrell 159). There are some flaws of the big bang cosmology proposed in the book Creation and the God of Abraham in explaining “the very beginning” of the universe. First, the idea that in a vacuum state there is an existence of a very small potential energy. The big bang does not explain how this small potential energy can exist or a singular point when this energy came to existence (Burrell 167). Second, the inability of big bang cosmology to explain the very beginning of space and time. Since it cannot explain where the potential energy came from, there is inadequate information to pin point when time actually began (t=0). Similar with space, the big bang cosmology cannot explain how matter can exist in a vacuum state. Also it is unable to explain how matter in a vacuum state can exist due to the expansion and cooling process (Burrell 167). Third, the probabilities that can lead into another types of universes – the idea of multiverse “will require a more fundamental physical explanation (Burrell 168).

To understand how the big bang cosmology relates to creation from nothing, I will provide the arguments from both theological and scientific point of views. William Stoeger, in his essay, The Big Bang, Quantum Cosmology and Creatio ex Nihilo, adopts the theological view that creation from nothing complements the big bang cosmology because it cannot really provide the “very beginning” of the universe. His basic reason is that creatio ex nihilo provides the explanation or the ground “for the existence and basic order of whatever the sciences reveal” (Burrell 169). The doctrine creatio ex nihilo does this through the idea that God created from nothing, a “self-making” world. Stoeger provides five points to understand creatio ex nihilo and its complementary relation to the big bang better. First, the argument that God the creator is a necessary condition for creation. Not only God as a primary cause – creates from nothing, but also a secondary cause where God sustains the world, the expansion and cooling process up to the formation of the universe. Second, creatio ex nihilo answers the question whether or not there was a “very beginning” of the universe – a first moment (Burrel 172). Third, God did not only create a “self-making” world, but also empowered and gave the world the freedom to operate (Burrell 173). Fourth, God who sustains the world is both present and active in the world he created. And finally, “God is sustaining different things in being, with different properties, capacities and individualities” (Burrell 173).

From the scientific point of view, on the other hand, the big bang cosmology provides the argument that there is no creation event, therefore no need of a creator, “As one looks to earlier and earlier times, one finds that the model universe is not eternal, but there is no creation event either” (Oord 50). Stephen Hawking also proposes the idea that quantum cosmology without initial (boundary) conditions (Drees 378). He explains that if there is a beginning of the universe then the idea of a creator is possible. Unfortunately, for Hawking, the universe is “completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be” (Drees 381). Therefore there would be no place for a creator. From the scientific point of view, we can conclude that there is no relation between big bang cosmology and creatio ex nihilo because it does not acknowledge a creation event and the need of a creator.

By only focusing on how the bang may be the scientific way to explain creation from nothing, I was under the impression that science and religion can therefore go together because they have the same idea of the “very beginning” – nothingness or a vacuum state. But after reading and researching through big bang cosmology and creation out of nothing, I came to the conclusion that both sides do not have proper support. Big bang cosmology for instance, depending on who the scientists are, have different theories which contradict one another. It does not really explain the “very beginning” of everything, but only a theory, full of assumptions and limitations as previously mentioned. Also, I am very surprised to find out that creatio ex nihilo has no explicit biblical support. The original purpose of the doctrine was an attempt to “do justice to the absolute sovereignty and unlimited freedom of the biblical God” (MacFarland 2). It was a defense against the pagan view instead of a biblical view that explained the origin of everything.

From my point of view, creation from nothing does not complement big bang cosmology. The complementary relation suggests the idea of the God of the gap, where God fills the explanation where science cannot. Just because big bang does not point to the “very beginning”, does not mean that it agrees with the idea that God therefore created everything from nothing. This relation provides a room for science in the future to disprove the need of creator. Therefore, I would conclude that big bang cosmology and creation out of nothing have no relation as both sides are subjective man made theories or doctrines.

Works Cited

Burrell, David. Creation and the God of Abraham. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print.

Drees, William B. “Quantum Cosmologies and the ‘Beginning’” Zygon 26.3 (1991): 373-396. Print.

Matt, Daniel C. God & the Big Bang: Discovering Harmony Between Science and Spirituality. Vermont: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1996. Print.

McFarland, Ian A. From Nothing: A Theology of Creation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014. Print.

Oord, Thomas. Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals. London: Routledge, 2014. Print.

Polkinghorne, John. “Physics and Metaphysics in a Trinitarian Perspective.” Theology and Science 1.1 (2003): 33-49. Print.

#science #theology #bigbang #creatioexnihilo #creationoutofnothing