On Reconciling Creatio Ex Nihilo with Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit

Top o' the Stack. 

This entry examines Richard C. Potter's solution to the problem of reconciling creatio ex nihilo with ex nihilo nihil fit in his valuable article, "How To Create a Physical Universe Ex Nihilo," Faith and Philosophy, vol. 3, no. 1, (January 1986), pp. 16-26. (Potter appears to have dropped out of sight, philosophically speaking. PhilPapers shows only three articles by him, the last of which appeared in 1986. )

What I argue is that similar Potterian moves can be used by an atheist to argue that the universe caused itself to exist.  The upshot is that we remain stuck with the problem of reconciling the two principles.

A technical post, not for the faint of heart or weak of mind. You will have to put on your 'thinking caps' as Sister Ann Miriam said back in the first grade.

Comments

[Michael Brazier]

The proper solution is this: the two principles are talking about different kinds of causation. Ex nihilo nihil fit refers to efficient causality; an effect cannot exist without a cause, thus no thing can come from nothing. Creatio ex nihilo refers to material causality; the prime matter, out of which everything in the universe is made, is not itself made of anything else and did not exist from eternity. But it does have an efficient cause, namely God.

It would be flippant just to reply "God is not nothing", but that is the kernel of the resolution.

[BV]

By creating out of nothing, God efficiently causes a universe to exist, but without operating upon anything pre-existent. So something, a material universe, arises out of nothing. And this violates ENNF which has nothing to do with causality, contrary to what you claim. You haven't solved the problem.

[Michael Brazier]

If ENNF were about the constituents of things, as you claim, it would entail either an infinite regress (contingent A is made of B, which is contingent and made of C, which is contingent and made of ...) or pantheism (the ultimate constituent of every thing is eternal and unchangeable, hence divine; so God is everything.) The first is manifestly unacceptable, and the second makes all change an illusion; which is fine for Parmenides, but not for anyone who differs with him.

No, fit in ex nihilo nihil fit must be causal, not constitutive. That's the only interpretation which is even plausible. And creatio ex nihilo is expressly constitutive, as it was intended from the start to deny the eternity of matter.