Is Creation Ex Nihilo Literally "Wishful Thinking?"

[Dimmesdale]

I want to explore the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Namely, that God creates the universe out of nothing whatsoever, as opposed to a pre-existing matter or some other substratum that he uses, whether derived from himself (creation ex deo) or some other source of being co-eternal with him.

People take this for granted: that God can do whatever he wants because he is God, and that includes making everything, as it were, out of mere "Will."

I find this ironic. People nowadays still find the doctrine of theism more rational than, say, pantheism or panentheism. To think that the world itself is God is seen as bizarre, since it runs counter to our anthropomorphic depictions of God that the West has been steeped in. Panentheism, that the world is a part or an aspect of God, is likewise seen as alien.

What I wish to illustrate however, is that a totally transcendent Other God that is totally distinct from all other beings is actually the much stranger position to take. In fact, I see it as more irrational and even downright superstitious, to be an orthodox Christian or Abrahamist, rather than an Eastern pantheist.

This is because creation ex nihilo runs counter to all our experience. There has never been an instance of creation out of nothing on record, that is, documented. Things do not suddenly appear out of thin air, as it were. What we instead see, time and again, is Process. Things come together out of prior or antecedent causes, whether those are material or efficient. Everything hearkens back to some original being, an original Root that birthed the current iteration of our universe. If we trace that causality back to God, that is all well and good in my book, but what is lacking then is the Means of this whole causal chain.

If we say God is a Creator, than what does that mean? If we say that human beings are creators, we say in effect that, at the very least, we, as humans, have the Desire to bring something new into being. What we also mean, however, is that humans, whether as artists, builders, musicians, or anything else, also have the Means to actualize whatever desires they have. Without the Means available to effectively bring about a creation, no Desire will be sufficient or effective.

To say that God is omnipotent is to dodge this problem by obfuscation. What is meant by omnipotent? That desire is sufficient? But why? Why assume this when there is no evidence readily available that can show this? Is it not more reasonable that God has a Host of co-eternal Energies that are at his disposal to shape and manipulate? That at least is palpable. That is something that is coherent. To say that God simply has an ability no other being has, is groundless.

Or it may be grounded. In something else, namely the Christian or Islamic revelation. All well and good. But as a scientifically-minded theist, I must say that I find the doctrine of Emanation much more cogent since it accords with Experience to a far greater extent.