DISCUSS
Not only is there no evidence for God but the evidence makes his existence unlikely. Creation makes his existence impossible.
THE CREATION ARGUMENT IS MERE WORDS
They claim that God created everything “out of nothing”. But they treat God as spirit. Reification is quite common anyway. It seems to be happening here for they mistake an idea for a thing. Spirit supposedly has no parts and is not subject to time or space. They attribute presence and causal power to this abstract concept, as if ideas themselves were entities. Persons that confused are in no position to know what creation would even mean. They are not in a position to truly grasp the concept of nothing or even spirit. Spirit seems to be used as a word for "not anything". Arguments from creation are based on the fallacy of false equivalence.
THE ARGUMENT
Let us consider the concept of nothing. Nothing is the absence of anything. It is not a quantity, a substance, or a medium—it is simply the lack of existence.
The problem with having a God who makes a universe when there is a lack of existence implies that the universe is meant to exist and the lack is abnormal. That makes no sense. There being nothing does not mean there should be something.
To speak of “creation from nothing” is therefore problematic: if nothing exists, there is nothing to act upon, nothing to transform, and nothing to serve as a source. The phrase “creation from nothing” may seem meaningful, but it conflates language with logic.
Religious traditions—including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—often present creation ex nihilo as a rational explanation for the origin of the universe. However, upon close examination, the concept raises fundamental logical questions.
The idea of God as an unchanging, perfect, timeless being who creates the universe from nothing implies a transformation of absolute nonexistence into existence. But nothingness, by definition, cannot be acted upon. If something arises where there was nothing, this occurrence would be inexplicable even with a divine agent. The act of creation in this sense is not creation in the ordinary sense—it is an assertion that defies the principle that ex nihilo nihil fit: out of nothing, nothing comes.
If one argues that God exists as a non-material being and therefore creation did not arise from “strict nothing,” this does not resolve the issue. Even if God exists, the question remains: how does anything emerge from no pre-existing matter or energy? Creation ex nihilo does not explain the transition from nonexistence to existence; it simply asserts it.
From a rational standpoint, the claim that God created the universe out of nothing introduces contradictions:
If something can arise from nothing with God’s intervention, why could it not arise without God?
If creation requires God’s power, then this “power” is, in effect, part of the causal chain, challenging the notion of God’s independence from creation.
The concept requires infinite power to transform absolute nothing into something, yet the very act of applying power presupposes a “something” to act upon.
In other words, creation ex nihilo does not resolve the mystery of existence; it shifts the problem to a more abstract level without making it more intelligible. Philosophically, it is more coherent to acknowledge that the origin of the universe is unknown than to assert that it emerged from nothing, either by divine command or spontaneously.
Science approaches the question of origins differently. It examines observable processes and seeks explanations consistent with evidence. While the ultimate origin of the universe may lie beyond current empirical knowledge, scientific reasoning avoids assertions that violate logical principles. Creation ex nihilo, by contrast, is not falsifiable or logically demonstrable.
In conclusion, creation ex nihilo is not a rational explanation for the existence of the universe. Nothing, by definition, cannot give rise to something, with or without divine intervention. The doctrine raises more questions than it answers and cannot serve as a reliable basis for understanding reality. Acknowledging the limits of human knowledge about origins is more consistent with reason than asserting that something arose from nothing.