Skip to main content
Log in

A Noneist Account of the Doctrine of Creatio ex Nihilo

  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I spell out a problem with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo: that, contra the doctrine, it is not possible to efficiently cause something from nothing. This is because an efficient cause requires a material cause in order to have an effect. The material cause supplies the potency that the efficient cause actualises. Because nothingness has no potencies, there is nothing for an efficient cause to actualise. I show that this objection presupposes that the theory of noneism (the proposition that some things do not exist) is false. I postulate that the universe (i.e. the created order) is a non-existent item and so there is no problem with the claim that it was efficiently caused to come from nothing – the universe has no being anyway. After rehearsing the rather strong reasons in favour of the truth of noneism, I deal with two objections that are peculiar to my claim that the universe lacks reality: that creation possesses characteristics that are sufficient to render it existent and that a non-existent object has its properties independent of divine fiat. I show that there are sensible replies to both objections. With regard to the first I show that the possession of such characteristics at most shows that the universe has an ontological status that is equivalent to some reference point. With regard to the second I argue that the Characterisation Principle (i.e. in some world – not necessarily the actual world – an object has the properties that it is characterised as having) entails that non-existent objects possess their properties in virtue of some existent entity and that the only plausible candidate for such an entity is a divine mind of some sort.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For an account of the metaphysics of Kashmir Shaivism see Dyczkowski 1987. A recent account of Leslie's theology is to be found in Leslie 2001.

  2. See, for example, See http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5705 and http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9205.

  3. A recent notable example is of course William Lane Craig.

  4. Take for example the first premise of the so called Kalam Cosmological Argument: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. If you reject that there is a necessity in the relation between a cause and its effect, then you are unlikely to much reason for accepting this premise. This is because there is no need for an event to have a prior cause in order for it to obtain. After all, it's not as if the cause compels it's effect anyway.

  5. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5705

  6. See, for example, his articles ‘Van Inwagen On Uncreated Beings’ and ‘Why are (some) Platonists so insouciant?’ at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scholarly_articles_divine_aseity. See also Copan & Craig 2004: 180-9.

  7. See, for example, Priest 2005 and Routley 1980. For a critique of Noneism see Perszyk 1993.

  8. Here I am comparing and contrasting an existent with a non-existent object. So by ‘horse’ I mean currently living horses. There are possible but non-existent horses and horses that existed in the past or will exist in the future – but I am not referring to such non-existent objects.

  9. See Priest 2005: 138-40, and Routley 1980.

  10. The main sources for this argument are to be found in Descartes Discourse on the Method and Meditations.

  11. Principles of Philosophy, o.LII in Anscombe and Geach 1970: 192.

  12. See Routley 1980: 697-768 for a discussion of the concept of existence.

  13. Gen 1:3.

  14. Jn 1: 1,3.

  15. An excellent semi-popular survey is Copan & Craig 2004: 197-248.

  16. See for example Smith in Craig and Smith 1995; Oppy 2006; Sobel 2004. What these do show is that there are possible objections to the premises of the arguments in question. And as such a person is not compelled to accept them. What they do not show is that the negations of these premises are more plausible than the premises (and surely that is what counts in accessing if an argument is convincing).

  17. Priest 2005: 119.

  18. The only other tradition that comes close to understanding the ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine in such terms is Advaita Vedanta.

References

  • Anscombe, E., & Geach, P. (Eds.). (1970). Descartes philosophical writings. London: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, W. L. (2011). Theism defended. In B. L. Gordon & W. A. Dembski (Eds.), The nature of nature: Examining the role of naturalism in science (pp. 901–17). Delaware: ISI Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, W. L., & Smith, Q. (1995). Theism, atheism and big bang cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dyczkowski, M. S. G. (1987). The doctrine of vibration: An analysis of the doctrines and practices of Kashmir Shaivism. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, J. (2001). Infinite minds: A philosophical cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppy, G. (2006). Philosophical perspectives on infinity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perszyk, K. J. (1993). Nonexistent objects: Meinong and contemporary philosophy. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G. (2005). Towards non-being: the logic and metaphysics of intentionality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Routley, Richard. Exploring Meinong's Jungle and Beyond: An Investigation of Noneism and the Theory of Items. Canberra: Departmental Monograph #3, Philosophy Department, Research School of the Social Sciences ANU, 1980.

  • Sobel, J. H. (2004). Logic and theism: Arguments for and against beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Douglas Kabay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kabay, P.D. A Noneist Account of the Doctrine of Creatio ex Nihilo . SOPHIA 52, 281–293 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-012-0323-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-012-0323-3

Keywords

Navigation