Aristotle's Law of Causality cannot be applied to creation ex nihilo.
The root of the Law is simple. Aristotle's Law of Causality necessarily requires a minimum of two real objects PRIOR to the phenomenon. Object A, called the Mediator imparts causal action to Object B called the Target. Object B undergoes change effect for the duration of the phenomenon and puts out Object C. Call Object C the Output. The Output directly stems from the Target.
Example: The sculptor sculpts a rock. The Mediators of this phenomenon are the sculptor, the hammer and the chisel; all pre-defined objects that exist prior to the phenomenon. The Target is the rock, also a pre-defined object that exist prior to the phenomenon. The sculptor is object A1, the hammer is object A2, the chisel is object A3. The rock is object B. The three mediators move toward the rock and impart causal action to the rock. The chisel comes in surface-to-surface contact with the rock. The rock undergoes change effect for the duration of the sculpting. And out comes a statue of David from the consummation of the sculpting event. The statue of David is object C called the Output. The statue stemmed from the rock. Aristotle's Law of Causality was only meant to be applied to physical objects and their phenomena. It is a conceptual tool to facilitate understanding and communication.
In the creation ex nihilo scenario there is only God. God is the Mediator, Object A, however there is no real Target object B or even an Output, object C. In the Divine Act of creation ex nihilo there is a missing objects, namely, the Target and the Output. God does not impart causal action to any pre-existing Target, object B. Thus there can be no Output, Object C. God cannot impart causal action on space, or that which lacks form otherwise known as nothing. This is an ontological contradiction.
Creation ex nihilo is an 'unmediated' Act. Creation ex nihilo is a miracle. This miracle defies Aristotle's Law of Causality, so also ontology. Aristotle didn't have miracles in mind when he conceived his so called 'law'. God defies petty humans as well as reason. According to cold hard reason the Divine Act labelled 'creation ex nihilo' is contradictory, inconceivable and impossible. God did that which to us is inconceivable and impossible. He is One to perform miracles. That which the Lord God conceives and chooses is DONE. End of story. Without knowledge of this miracle drawn from Divine Revelation, the rational default position is that matter and the nothing contouring matter (space) is eternal. I suppose that the miracle of creation ex nihilo was elegant and I have offered something of a personal opinion of how the miracle may have unfolded in other blog posts. I assume that it was completely different than what the Big-Bang adherents propose.
But, creation ex nihilo contradicts Aristotle's Law of Causality as well as ontology. A Catholic Christian has no need to go and 'prove' his folly to the world by invoking intellectual dishonesty. A fool for Christ has no need to 'jerry rig' concepts and sidestep rational processes in order to show the world that he is right and everyone else is wrong in regards to creation ex nihilo. A human person can know God with certainty by use of reason but this is a different concept than to scientifically explain, logically derive, rationally argue, or attempt to prove via observation and evidence a miraculous act that is unknown and unexplainable. It would be better for a Christian to accomplish conversions via prayer (especially the Rosary), self-denial and works of mercy than to argue or prove creation ex nihilo as rational and right and all else as irrational and wrong.
It is better to be a fool for Christ than to wallow in intellectual dishonesty or validate your beliefs by the ghosts of the Big-Bang (briefly treated below) and other non-sense such as the Leibnizian and Kalam cosmological arguments and Infinite Regression. I know people who eat up Big-Bang as well as the cosmological arguments for breakfast. They do circles around ignorant Christians who have this insatiable drive to show the world that they are right and reasonable. God is not in need of anyone's intellectual protection.
Aristotle's Law of Causality cannot even be applied to Genesis 1 since the Spirit of God does not come in physical contact with the surface of the Earth. A couple of posts ago I used the Law so as to frame up a context (not to argue). I modified the Law. I cheated, but I explained myself. I wanted to set a context for ease of understanding and communication, but not to argue. Normally, I do not argue in favor of miracles that defy reason and cannot be scientifically explained. I assume faith and then see what fruit critical thinking and rational analysis might yield when applied to Divine Revelation.
But those who argue God as an Uncaused Cause or a First Cause are cheaters. They do not even understand what the word 'cause' resolves to. 'Cause' refers to a concept, conceived of by Aristotle or some other Greek and/or persons of various cultures. Man conceived of this concept by observing physical objects. His brain associated that an object A moves toward another object B, the two come in contact, and object B changes because of object A. So he conceived of the words cause and effect in order to facilitate understanding and communication of certain phenomena. Cause is that which something DOES to another thing. A causal action does not exist since it requires a conscious observer to remember and conceive.
Cause, as well as Effect (and all rational verbs and concepts) necessarily invoke or embody a minimum of two pre-existing and pre-defined objects. Try conceiving a concept without a minimum of two objects (and or concepts: remember a concept is a relation of two or more objects). Even the conception of the word concept 'God' requires Adam, his neurons and God (who appears to Adam). Even the One Divine Act for all its simplicity and immutability requires Three Divine Objects: the Father and the Son and the Spirit.
There is no trick to circumvent a concept. They are just ideas invented by Man. They do not exist and they cannot genuinely represent nouns of reality, such as God, stars, rocks, trees, persons, chisels, engine parts, etc. Conversion of the verb-concept cause into a noun of reality is called the Reification of 'Cause'. All causes necessarily resolve to at least two objects of existence. Cause is the interaction of the two nouns of reality: A Mediator imparts causal action to a Target. In ordinary speech we may call the Mediator (object A) the Cause however this talk is not fit for science regardless of the field.
God is not the 'Cause'. To say that God is a Cause is the same as saying God resolves to a concept invented by a man. Does that make sense to a Jew, Christian or Muslim? There is no such thing as a 'cause'. And there is no such thing as an Uncaused Cause, or a First Cause. These are meaningless titles that have no utility. First Cause and Uncaused Cause are meaningless contradictions. I suppose they only confuse people. They may have worked a thousand years ago but they are no longer applicable to intelligent beings of the 21st century. God does impart causal action to objects, but He does so supernaturally, without coming into physical contact unless of course our context is Christ Jesus and even then there is a supernatural Presence that defies rationale, ontology, logical systems, and sensory systems. The Spirit of God living within a human person does not come in physical surface to surface contact with the soul, heart organ and brain. From within He stimulates you miraculously. He imparts causal action to your heart and brain at WILL and this enables you to know God and to be like Jesus and to make choices like Jesus.
Furthermore, Aristotle's Law of Causality cannot be applied to the Big-Bang for the same reasons. In Big-Bang, the Singularity replaces God. The Singularity is the supposed Mediator, Object A. The Singularity is a fictitious mathematical concept without shape or dimensions. It did not exist. To suppose that it existed is inconceivable and absurd. Where did this Singularity come from? It refers to an artificial concept, invented by the troubled mathematicians who play with dynamic concepts via their brain cells. In Big-Bang the mythical 0D singularity (nothing) either imparts causal action to itself (nothing) or undergoes change effect from a nothing. And outcomes an array of so much conceptual hogwash that the International Astronomical Union cannot even define their key term Big-Bang or other key terms. It is a circus.
There are so many contradictions bloated into the Big-Bang that I do not even know where to begin. There are so many variations of the Big-Bang how could I even possibly analyze them all? And they contradict one another. Those in the Big-Bang culture seem to vie for to own a piece of the hypothesis and theory. But Big-Bang completely fails at conception. It is irrational in all its twisted phases and flavors.
The Big-Bang theory claims that the shapeless concept space can spontaneously appear and undergo change effects such as inflation and expansion via causal action imparted by . . . who knows what??? How is that which lacks shape supposed to 'get some action'? Perhaps from the fictitious 0D Singularity (nothing)? Perhaps another conceptual universe (nothing)? Perhaps by abstract concepts (nothing) or supposed hierarchies of nothing? In any case, an inflation or expansion of space is an ontological contradiction called 'matterless motion'. It is inconceivable and impossible. Space cannot even be created, not even by God. God cannot create that which lacks shape or move nothing.
The Big-Bangers claim that an undefined idea called energy can be condensed into a 0D nothing and expand! They literally work from forward to back tracing a fictitious history of this god-like idea labelled energy.
Another undefined idea labelled 'density' is qualified by the inapplicable adjective infinite to infinite density. This would imply that density is an object with shape since 'infinite' is an adjective and yet an infinite object is impossible! An object is by definition finite: a shape is bounded from its immediate environment.
In Big-Bang, 0D photons can convert into protons, neutrons and electrons (in other words acquire length, width, and height) and then magically attach themselves to synthesized nuclei. This is an ontological contraction supported by a godlike mathematical equation that is divorced from reality.
Before we even get to the explanatory phase where supposed irrational photon's 'dominated the universe' at about 10 to 9th of a second one has to wade through hierarchies of particle annihilation which is an impossible event. Discrete particles are irrational and matter cannot convert into space (nothing). Furthermore before we even reach the 'time' of the first particle annihilation we must undergo a hierarchical process of nothings as well as wave-functions (mathematical nothings) tunneling through nothing.
Nothing just isn't nothing anymore. Nothing refers to abstract concepts and mathematical 'entities' that supposedly exist, impart causal actions and/or undergo change effects. [Remember exist is defined as an object (that which has shape) and location (set of static distances from an object to all other objects).
The Western philosophers and physicists are so confused that they now debate and discourse over the negative concept called NOTHING. All the yellow brick roads of Western philosophy and physics leads to: NOTHING.
Then there are the quantum fluctuations. What is it that fluctuates at 0T? The Singularity? Space? Energy? All impossible. Abstract concepts cannot fluctuate. A concept cannot move. Objects move, not concepts. Why? Because concepts refer to nothing in existence. They lack shape. Concepts are mediated by brain activity.
The Big-Bang claims that the nothingness of space stretched the first discrete photons for 13.8 billion years via matterless motion: space (nothing) expands and accelerates the particles that never quite reach their target!!!! Discrete particles can wave! How this happens is beyond anyone. Or light is a wavicle. Who knows? Its all good as long as they cover all their bases. And this is the problem with Big-Bang. They have an irrational hypothesis for the mediator of light, thus a Big-Bang cannot even be conceived or understood. Conception of a rational medium of light is necessary prior to a hypothesis of a consummated event involving light.
But to continue with the non-sense: a mass-less discrete particle (made of nothing) magically waves for 13.8 billions of years via the motion of nothing and we detect the temperature of nothing using techno-toys. Then everyone is given their paycheck and prizes. The Big-Bang photons are still bombarding us to this day. We are bathed in them just as we are bathed in intellectual hogwash.
In conclusion. Aristotle's Law of Causality cannot be applied to the Catholic belief labelled 'creation ex nihilo' nor can it be applied to the Big-Bang. Ontological contradictions embody the Big-Bang hypotheses and theories. Supposing God, angels and souls is tame compared to all the supposed contradictions of Big-Bang, quantum mechanics, general relativity, special relativity and mathematical physics.
Big-Bang does not equal 'creation ex nihilo'. If it were up to me I would have Roman Catholics distance themselves from the Big-Bang. Even if for the sake of sanity. This stuff is way beyond what Galileo proposed hundreds of years ago.