Can something come from nothing

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

You say all claims must be empirically falsifiable except your claim that all claims must be empirically falsifiable. It's a circular position. Without any justification you will only accept theories justified by the tools of natural science and only ask the type of questions those tools can answer and surprise surprise only find natural theories. That is your tacit ontology coming through and it's a self-defeating one. Natural science cannot explain why natural science works. Natural science can investigate beings but not being-as-such. Talk about never providing an answer! You do realize, don't you, that Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, the man who came up with the falsifiable criteria for natural science, was a theist? Are you going to tell me that you know better than Popper when and how it is appropriate to apply the falsification criteria?

The fact is that some ontological positions are logically incoherent, like materialism, and others are not. Your aversion to metaphysics seems more than incurious but ideological. Can't let God slip in the door! No. No. Let's block or dismiss all the other components for evaluating theories, criteria like coherence, explanatory power, and comprehensiveness. I accept the best available ontology.

Maybe someday you'd like to have an actual formal debate about the 5W because I would relish the opportunity to wipe the floor with all the staw men in your last post.