Creation-from-nothing is not the change of one thing into another in the way most physicists who write on the subject say it is (Larry Krauss is a good example). Creation is not a fashioning, for that implies making something out of something. Creation is the strangest thing you can think of. And, as always, review! These arguments not isolated from what came before.
 HAVING proved the foregoing, it is evident that God’s action, which is without prejacent matter and is called creation, is neither movement nor change, properly speaking.
 For all movement or change is the action of that which is in potentiality as such. Now in this action there preexists nothing in potentiality to receive the action, as we have proved. Therefore it is neither movement nor change.
Notes He means in the act of creation there is no movement or change. Nothing to something is not a change in something. No potentiality is being actualized. This is the key.
 Again. The extremes of a movement or change are included in the same order: either because they come under one genus, as contraries, for instance in the movement of growth and alteration, and when a thing is carried from one place to another; or because they have one potentiality of matter in common, as privation and form in generation and corruption. But neither of these applies to creation: for it admits of no potentiality, nor of anything of the same genus that may be presupposed to creation, as we have proved. Therefore there is neither movement nor change therein.
Notes In the state of Nothing, that lack of something is not a privation, i.e. an “evil” (lack of good, or evil, is a privation, as we discovered before). Nothing is not an absence. It is non-existence. Study Thomas’s description; it is technically correct. But as creatures embedded in material existence, Nothing is hard to think of, perhaps impossible to fully grasp.
 Further. In every change or movement there must be something that is conditioned otherwise now and before: since the very name of change shows this. But when the whole substance of a thing is brought into being, there can be no same thing that is conditioned in one way and in another, for it would not be produced, but presupposed to production. Therefore creation is not a change.
 Further. Movement and change must needs precede that which is made by change or movement: because having been made is the beginning of rest and the term of movement. Wherefore all change must be movement or the term of a movement that is successive. For this reason, what is being made, is not: for as long as movement lasts, something is being made and is not: whereas in the term itself of movement, wherein rest begins, no longer is a thing being made, but it has been made. Now in creation this is impossible: for if creation preceded as movement or change, it would necessarily presuppose a subject, and this is contrary to the nature of creation. Therefore creation is neither movement nor change.
Notes It’s not easy to see, but the concept of Infinity is wrapped up in all this. It must take infinite power to fashion something out of Nothing. Quantum fields are something. Strings, or whatever else might be wiggling about and forming particles, are something. Energy is something. Nothing is the complete absence of every physical thing. If creation isn’t a movement, what is it? That’s what, in part, the next chapter answers.
 FROM this we may see the vacuity of those who gainsay creation by arguments taken from the nature of movement and change: such as that creation must needs, like other movements and changes, take place in some subject, and that it implies the transmutation of non-being into being, like that of fire into air.
 For creation is not a change, but the very dependence of created being on the principle whereby it is produced. Hence it is a kind of relation. Wherefore nothing prevents its being in the creature as its subject. Nevertheless creation would seem to be a kind of change according only to our way of understanding: in so far, to wit, as our intellect grasps one and the same thing as previously non-existent, and as afterwards existing.
Notes Hold this: “creation is…the very dependence of created being on the principle whereby it is produced.” In our limited way, we say creation is a change because “our intellect grasps one and the same thing as previously non-existent, and as afterwards existing.” But it is not a change in something.
 It is clear however that if creation is a relation, it is a thing: and neither is it uncreated, nor is it created by another relation. For since a created effect depends really on its creator, this relation must needs be some thing. Now every thing is brought into being by God. Therefore it receives its being from God. And yet it is not created by a different creation from the first creature which is stated to be created thereby. Because accidents and forms, just as they are not per se, so neither are they created per se, since creation is the production of a being, but just as they are in another, so are they created when other things are created.
 Moreover. A relation is not referred through another relation,—for in that case one would go on to infinity,—but is referred by itself, because it is essentially a relation. Therefore there is no need for another creation whereby creation itself is created, so that one would go on to infinity.
Notes Creation is a relation (say that thrice), but the relation cannot be from some “deeper down” thing, that itself was created from some deeper down thing, and so on. It has to bottom out. There must be a base which is responsible for everything. Next week we learn more about what this base must be.