A proof for the impossibility of creation ex nihilo
Did I really just say "proof"?
I’m not typically the kind of guy that believes in logical proofs. But then again, you can give a pretty damn good proof for the impossibility of married bachelors and square circles. So I guess there’s nothing wrong with “proofs” in principle.
Now I’ve convinced you that proofs are legit, here’s a PROOF for the impossibility of creation ex nihilo.
The PROOF!
Whatever is created ex nihilo is completely metaphysically dependent on God.
Whatever is created ex nihilo is not constituted of (or from) anything further.
Whatever is not constituted of (or from) anything further is constitutively independent.
Whatever is constitutively independent is at least partially metaphysically independent, because constitutive independence is a kind of metaphysical independence.
Therefore, whatever is created ex nihilo is both completely metaphysically dependent (from 1) and at least partially metaphysically independent (from 2–4).
Nothing can be both completely metaphysically dependent and partially metaphysically independent.
Therefore, nothing can be created ex nihilo.
Reject a premise?
Rejecting (1) is to reject creation ex nihilo. (If God alone isn’t the sole explanation of things, then God plus [whatever] are jointly the explanation of things. If [whatever] also existed alongside God, from which God created the universe, then that’s NOT creation ex nihilo! Also, wouldn’t [whatever] already count as a universe? Some non-God object with concrete existence? No?)
Rejecting (2) is to reject creation ex nihilo.
(3) is a tautology, so rejecting it would amount to changing the definition of “constitutive independence”.
(4) is a tautology, so rejecting it would amount to changing the definition of “constitutive independence” or “partial metaphysical independence”.
(5) - (7) just follow logically.
Some objections
Deny that constitutive independence entails real metaphysical independence
Objection: Constitutive independence (not being made of God) does not entail any real independence from God. The universe is still entirely caused, sustained, and grounded by God through His power/will/creative act/energies. So even if it isn’t constituted of God, it can still be completely metaphysically dependent.
Response: That’s only coherent if constitutive dependence isn’t a kind of metaphysical dependence, but it is. If something is not constituted of or from anything else, then some aspect of its being is ungrounded in another; i.e., it is metaphysically independent in that respect. If you say it’s not dependent in that way but is still “completely” dependent, then “complete” is being used inconsistently or equivocally.
Redefine "complete metaphysical dependence" to exclude constitutive dependence
Objection: When we say the universe is “completely metaphysically dependent,” we mean it is causally or existentially dependent in all respects, but we don’t include constitutive dependence in that claim.
Response: Then the term “completely metaphysically dependent” is being used in a restricted sense, while the argument treats it in the full sense. That’s a bait-and-switch. If you exclude certain forms of dependence from “complete dependence,” then it’s no longer complete. You’d need to clarify the scope of that claim and admit that there’s some kind of independence; exactly what the argument is pointing out.
Retreat to apophaticism
Objection: Your argument assumes that we can make clear-cut metaphysical distinctions, like "constitutive independence" and "complete metaphysical dependence", and apply them directly to the divine act of creation. But in the apophatic tradition, we deny that such concepts apply univocally to God. God’s act of creating is not one among other causes, nor is His relation to the world captured by human categories of “dependence” or “constitution.”
The universe is wholly from God, yet not of God, and that paradox is not a contradiction, it’s a mystery. God’s uncreated energies are not “materials” but expressions of divine will and presence, which are not reducible to the categories of rationalism. So your argument, while rigorous within a philosophical framework, simply doesn’t touch the theological view it claims to refute. It presupposes a conceptual clarity that apophatic theology explicitly denies.
Response: Mystery is fine. Contradiction is not.
If you say “the universe is wholly dependent on God” and “the universe is not in any respect dependent on God (e.g., not constituted of God),” and then deny any partial independence follows from that, you're asserting A and not-A. That’s not apophaticism, it’s incoherence.
Apophatic theology rightly emphasises that God’s essence is beyond knowing. But my argument is about the logical structure of creation, not the inner life of God. The contradiction arises within the created order, where we are told that something exists and is not constituted by anything else, yet is wholly dependent. That’s a contradiction within creation, not a claim to comprehend God’s essence.
To say "we reject the framework" is not to show it’s wrong. If your view requires rejecting the law of non-contradiction when applied to creation, that’s a heavy theological cost. Too heavy!
You're using metaphysical concepts like “creation,” “dependence,” and “divine causation” right up until a contradiction appears, and then retreating into mystery. But if you’re going to engage in rational theology, you can’t invoke reason when it suits you and suspend it the moment your view runs into trouble. That’s not reverence for divine transcendence. It’s a dogmatic escape hatch.
If contradictions can be shielded by mystery, then all views are equally unchallengeable, and reasoned discourse becomes meaningless. Mystery is not a license to affirm both A and not-A. If your theology depends on rejecting basic logical standards, then there’s no real conversation to be had.
Conclusion
Creation ex nihilo is doomed.
P.S.
An alternative, perhaps better, version of the argument would be as follows:
1*. Whatever is created ex nihilo is logically dependent on God in every respect.
2*. Whatever is created ex nihilo is not constituted of or from anything further.
3*. Whatever is not constituted of or from anything further is logically independent in that respect. (Tautology)
4*. Whatever is logically independent in any respect is not logically dependent in every respect. (Tautology)
5*. Therefore, whatever is created ex nihilo is both logically dependent in every respect (from 1) and not logically dependent in every respect (from 2–4).
6*. Nothing can be both logically dependent in every respect and not logically dependent in every respect. (Law of non-contradiction)
7. Therefore, nothing can be created ex nihilo.
Two PROOFS for the price of one. Well… free of charge. You’re welcome.
Here’s a defence of my argument against some objections:
Very good! Let me try something else, based on your model:
1#. Whatever is created ex nihilo is logically dependent on Consciousness in every respect.
2#. Whatever is created ex nihilo is not constituted of or from anything further.
3#. Whatever is not constituted of or from anything further is logically independent in that respect.
4#. Whatever is logically independent in any respect is not logically dependent in every respect.
This is Not a Tautology, because ‘independent in ANY’ is not the opposite of ‘dependent in EVERY’. The opposite of ‘dependent in EVERY’ is ‘dependent in not-EVERY’ or ‘independent in not-none’, but “anything further” in 3# could be None (no other respect is possible because there is nothing apart from consciousness).
5#. Therefore, creation ex nihilo is not disproven.
In short, there is a leap from 3 to 4, which assumes that there is something further that creation could dependent on, but this begs the question.
EDIT: There is another error. Being ‘dependent on something in every respect’ is not contradicted by ‘not being dependent on anything else’ (or being independent of everything else); these statements are logically equivalent. The contradiction would arise only if something were dependent in every respect on X but also dependent in some respect on Y.
Those who claim creation ex nihilo also typically claim that nothing transcends God, but these claims are self-defeating. That which is created ex nihilo necessarily transcends God - otherwise, the claim would be creation ex deus, but that is also rejected as it equates to pantheism. It’s the same argument you make but in terms of ontological dependency.
Christianity is long past due in rejecting creation ex nihilo, but it can’t because it’s a foundational piece in the fragile house of cards.