Can something come from nothing

[robvalue]

The problem with Aquaman's arguments, and any logical arguments in place of evidence, is that they are unfalsifiable. How exactly could we tell if we were in a reality where these things didn't apply? I never get an answer to this. At least, not a sane one. If there's no way of telling the difference, then it's just an assumption. The nearest thing I've heard to a "test" is to see if anything exists. If it does, the hypothesis is true. That's unfalsifiable, and question begging. It's impossible for the hypothesis to fail, because I have to exist to test it in the first place. If Neo or anyone else has any actual falsifiable tests, I'd be most interested.

If a hypothesis tells us something about reality, it has to be testable. Otherwise it's either speculation, or a pragmatic assumption [such as "there is an objective reality]. All these kind of arguments are doing is saying:

"Things I've observed so far need causes." [Fine, although you're not being too clear here about whether it's material or efficient causes. The whole argument rests on not looking at this too closely.]

"Therefor, everything EXCEPT THINGS IN GROUP X needs causes." [Wild assumption. The certain truth of this statement is required for the "proof" to work, and this is hopelessly untestable. The bolded part is sometimes put in. If the bold part is there, it's really just saying 'some things need causes'.]

"Therefor, reality itself needs a cause." [Fallacy of composition. Everything in my bag is blue; it doesn't mean my bag is also blue. This is even more wild speculation. We have absolutely no way of investigating outside of our reality. If the bold part above is put in, it's also just assuming that reality doesn't fall into that category.]

"And so the causes go on and on, and they can't go on forever..." [Argument from incredulity. Why can't they go on forever? Like I said, we have no idea what goes on outside our reality. Our ability to imagine or understand what happens is not required.]

"So there has to be a first cause." [Absolute total rubbish. Special pleading. The whole premise, the thing claimed to be true, has been violated. Or in the case where exceptions were made, it's been assumed without evidence that our reality isn't an exeption.]

So let's add those up... wild assumption, fallacy of composition, argument from incredulity, and then special pleading or another assumption.

I think it's awesome you're looking into the extra contexts, though. I highly doubt you'll find anything that can remove these hopeless logical fallacies, but like I said, I'm always open to new information! I'm just having fun here

---

PS: Someone is bound to come back with tu quoques like "How do you know anything is real? That's not testable!"

I agree. It's not testable. I don't know that anything is real. I don't even need to assume it. All I know is some sort of experience is happening. I'll take it for what it is, and study it as best I can. If it turns out "none of it is real", then who cares? Defining what "real" means is extremely hard anyway, and I've actually decided it's hopeless and I've adopted a version of absurdism. I only use the word in the informal sense, that things are "part of an assumed objective reality".