Assessing Christian Apologists’ Misrepresentation of “Nothing” in Cosmology

Many Christian apologists attempt to discredit cosmologists by accusing them of redefining the term “nothing” when discussing the origins of the universe. This tactic often hinges on a deliberate conflation between the colloquial use of “nothing”—a complete absence of anything whatsoever—and the technical use in physics, which refers to a vacuum state, quantum fields, or spacetime configurations with no particles but still governed by laws.

This rhetorical move misrepresents both the intent and audience of scientific discourse, and often signals either a misunderstanding or a strategic mischaracterization of physicists’ claims.

---

Specific Christian Apologists and Their Accusations

1. William Lane Craig
Craig is perhaps the most prolific apologist making this charge. In debates and writings (e.g., Reasonable Faith, various debates with physicists), Craig routinely criticizes physicists like Lawrence Krauss for “calling something nothing.” He argues that Krauss’s definition of “nothing” actually refers to “something” (a quantum vacuum governed by physical laws) and thus cannot be the true absence implied in ex nihilo creation.

Craig states:

“When physicists say ‘nothing,’ they often mean a quantum vacuum, which is not nothing in the philosophical sense. It’s a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws.”

Craig’s insistence on a philosophical absolute nothing—a state without even laws or potential—is presented as if it were the default or necessary conception, while ignoring the fact that science, by its nature, works only within what can be modeled, tested, or inferred.

2. Frank Turek
In I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Turek makes similar claims, accusing scientists of “smuggling in something” when they talk about the universe coming from nothing. He oversimplifies complex quantum models and appeals to a lay audience’s intuitive sense of “nothing,” leveraging this as a rhetorical weapon.

3. R.C. Sproul (now deceased)
Sproul, a theologian and philosopher, repeatedly made the point that “ex nihilo, nihil fit” (from nothing, nothing comes), rejecting any scientific use of “nothing” as incoherent from the outset.

---

The Scientific Position: Nuanced, Technical, and Well-Defined

Lawrence Krauss, in his book A Universe from Nothing (2012), explicitly defines what physicists mean by “nothing.” He does not pretend that this is “absolute nothingness” in the philosophical sense. Rather, he explores how quantum fluctuations in a low-energy vacuum state—governed by the uncertainty principle and quantum field theory—can lead to the spontaneous emergence of particles and energy.

Krauss explains:

“In this book, the word ‘nothing’ is being used somewhat differently from the colloquial or philosophical sense, and I try to make that clear.”

Indeed, the intended audience of Krauss and others—such as Stephen Hawking (The Grand Design, coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow), Sean Carroll, and Alex Vilenkin—includes readers with at least a general understanding of physics. These authors are not writing for philosophical literalists but for scientifically literate audiences, many of whom understand the technical language being used.

Moreover, these books provide explicit definitions of the terms they use, including “nothing,” “vacuum,” “quantum fields,” and more. To accuse them of bait-and-switch tactics—as some apologists do—is to ignore both the clarity of the definitions and the sophisticated frameworks in which these ideas are developed.

---

The Misuse: A Straw Man Fallacy

Christian apologists often erect a straw man by suggesting that physicists are trying to hide a metaphysical claim under the guise of science. But this move only works by equivocating on the term “nothing.”

Key fallacies involved:

• Equivocation Fallacy: Re-defining “nothing” mid-argument to critique physicists for using a definition they never claimed to avoid.
• Appeal to Intuition: Leaning on the colloquial understanding of “nothing” to emotionally appeal to non-scientific audiences.
• False Dichotomy: Arguing that either the universe came from absolute nothing or it was created by a personal God—without considering other possibilities, such as quantum cosmology, eternal inflation, or multiverse models.

---

Summary

The Christian apologist strategy of blaming scientists for their use of “nothing” is a misrepresentation. It overlooks or ignores these two crucial facts:

1. Scientific books on cosmology are written for an audience that is, by and large, equipped to understand the technical meaning of “nothing.”
2. The books by Krauss, Hawking, Carroll, Vilenkin, and others all clearly define their terms, including the nuanced and model-based use of ‘nothing.’

If the Christian apologist wishes to challenge scientific explanations, they must engage the technical definitions directly rather than resorting to rhetorical sleights of hand based on linguistic imprecision. Otherwise, their criticisms amount to little more than semantic games with no bearing on the actual physics involved.

---

See also:

✓ Was the Big Bang a “Miracle”?

---