Creation Out Of Nothing


In his book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking said that, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” The first question that comes to mind is how can something be created out of nothing? However, in addition, this statement raises other questions while providing no real answers. Let’s break it down.

How can you create something out of nothing (and from nowhere)?

In science, it’s impossible to create something out of nothing. Mathematically speaking, 0+0 will always equal zero.

The universe can and will create

So, exactly what kind of life force is this, anyway, that can create? After all, creation implies intelligence.

How is it that a Natural Law allows the universe to create?

Natural laws determine the process. They are predictive (only), but they do not create anything themselves. Besides, as Einstein said, “If there is a law there is a lawgiver.” Interestingly enough, theoretical physicist S. James Gates, Jr. says that his research indicates that the Natural Laws of the Universe contain embedded computer codes. If not a lawgiver, then, there must have been a super-intelligent computer programmer instead.


Theories, fossils and reverse engineering

So, what we really have here is an attempt to provide a quasi-scientific explanation for an ideology. How did we ever get to this point?  Well, to begin with, some scientific theories have been reverse engineered, so to speak. That is, scientists first started with a theory and then the framework for scientific enquiry was constructed on top of that, in order to hopefully provide the necessary observations to prove the theory; such was Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for example. Darwin realized that the fossil record did not, at that time, support evolution but he assumed that future examination of the fossil record would eventually produce the necessary observations of transitional fossil forms required to prove his theory. However, it was none other than Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist himself, who later admitted that those fossils couldn’t be found.

Aside: Of course, Darwin didn’t know anything about DNA (how could he have known?) and, if he had, I seriously doubt that he would have ever promulgated such a theory in the first place.


Where did time, space and matter come from?

Here’s the problem facing scientists on the issue of the origins of life in the universe. According to scientific theory, time, space and matter were all created simultaneously out of nothing (and from nowhere). The universe (poof) just popped into existence. Just poof.

Of course, science now admits that the universe had a beginning (The Big Bang). It was Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, who observed, “If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match.” It follows, then, that since the Big Bang had a match there must also have been a match lighter (i.e. a cause). In this case, the cause could only have come from beyond space and time.

As for “creation out of nothing,” it’s just a euphemism for the unknown, a way for science to claim that it understands something that can’t really be understood scientifically.  As the ancient Greek philosophers noted, the only thing that can be created from nothing is nothing.



In his book The End of Science, John Horgan raised the issue that there is a limit to knowledge as science attempts to push beyond what’s observable, since it is not possible to observe what exists beyond space and time simply by observing Nature. Yet, scientists do it everyday, with no thought about using the scientific method. Robert Lanza explained it thusly, “We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.” Stephen Hawking, of all people, should know better.


“Reality is not confined to space and time. The psyche is not under obligation to space and time alone.”

     – Carl Jung















6 Responses to “Creation Out Of Nothing”

  1. Arkenaten said

    What one is left with is some sort of creator – and this is where the real problems begin.

  2. Nan said

    Ya’ know … I understand where you’re coming from, but I still have problems with the “creator” idea.

    The theory that has made the most sense to me is the one that says the universe goes through a cycle of expansion, contraction, expansion, etc. IOW, no beginning, no end.

    Of course, if this is true, it would dispute the idea of a “big bang” — except perhaps for the fact that “something” would need to happen to start the (re)expansion period.

    Of course, I’m no cosmologist and I’m sure there are those who would pick apart this theory. Nonetheless, I guess we each have to choose the hypothesis that makes sense to us. And for me, a one-time “creator” simply doesn’t hold water.

    • chicagoja said

      Excellent commentary. That’s exactly the thought process that people usually go through when settling on a belief system. That is, does it somehow resonate with them. I’m good with that. As for the eternal universe, Einstein’s theory of relativity contradicts that. Besides, how would the universe be able to continually reverse course? Where’s the impetus to reverse the forces of Nature? By the way, most scientists would say that the universe is expanding (only).It’s not that they’re not looking for a solution to your dilemma, they are as many scientists are atheists. It’s just that they haven’t found one. However, it doesn’t mean that they won’t some day.The problem that I personally have with an eternal universe is the question of where did the oxygen, hydrogen et al come from originally? Did it just poof into existence? There will probably be no definitive answer to this question (ever) so people will continue to just believe in whatever feels good to them.

  3. I’m not sure where you are going with the comments on evolution; it seems a bit muddled…but, scientific explanations are pragmatic at base. They seek to lay out the mechanism of the phenomena which they examine. What the theories end up with is coherence, both internally and, with the addition of bridge laws, theory to theory.
    So, it is a mistake to draw sweeping conclusions based on scientific theory alone, i.e. you can’t just eliminate metaphysics, even finding the language to do so is a metaphysical operation. That caution goes for drawing conclusions about what must arise from a singularity or what lies behind(?) it.
    Notably, the caveat doesn’t just apply to Prof. Hawking’s statement (and what do you expect – he is a physicist so he is going to assume that physics holds), but to the lot of Natural Theology, which is an utterly bankrupt enterprise thereby.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: