An atheist once said to me that since nothingness does not exist it has no rules, so there are no rules preventing non-existence from creating or causing something to happen. The flaw in that thinking is that though it is true nothingness has no rules, there is nothing for it to prevent since there is just nothing, so remains non-existence always non-existent. You can be confident in saying nothing always leaves nothing from nothing.
Another way you can respond to this is to say since nothingness has no rules it has no rule to cause something, so nothingness can't cause anything. It likewise has no rules to prevent something, but since there is not anything then there is nothing to prevent. If theoretically there was something to prevent then 'no rule to cause something' and 'no rule to prevent something' are contradicting each other. That which is self-contradictory is flawed in its reasoning. Either way you approach this problem, something still can't come from nothing.
The reason why a billion pound gorilla can't stomp NYC is because it doesn't exist. The reason why there are no square circles that can cause other shapes (assuming they could) is because square circles don't exist. Does a square circle have no rules to prevent the creation of rectangles? It has no such rules but since there is only nothing (no rectangles or triangles for that matter), there is nothing to prevent. A square circle has no rule to cause something either so it can't cause something. If there was something 'it has no rule to prevent,' again, that would be self-contradictory to 'having no rule to cause things.' That which is self-contradictory is inherently flawed in its approach; so that false approach is to play with nothingness as though it could have rules or no rules.
Nothingness is simply non-existence, and giving rules or no rules to it is a false approach because it has neither rule nor no rules. Having no rules is itself a rule. So you can't have nothingness with a rule of no rules since non-existence has no rules. We only have evidence for cause and effect from something, no hard evidence of something from nothing. We observe trillions of cause and effects and not one iota of evidence of something from nothing. Let us rest on the evidence and the evidence alone without having to be cute about rules or no rules. I am satisfied with that fact.
The same atheist also said to me that the mechanics of nothingness need to be explained because nothingness has no mechanics. If non-existence has no mechanics then it would be illogical to insist upon knowing the non-existent mechanics of nothingness. That would be like asking what is color of that distance?
This little exercise, if nothing else, shows the desperation of atheists by their twists and turns, but still remain delusional. Let me reiterate we have trillions of cause and effects and no hard evidence of something from nothing. The atheist is hostile to God so it tries to circumvent this evidence.
Another way you can respond to this is to say since nothingness has no rules it has no rule to cause something, so nothingness can't cause anything. It likewise has no rules to prevent something, but since there is not anything then there is nothing to prevent. If theoretically there was something to prevent then 'no rule to cause something' and 'no rule to prevent something' are contradicting each other. That which is self-contradictory is flawed in its reasoning. Either way you approach this problem, something still can't come from nothing.
The reason why a billion pound gorilla can't stomp NYC is because it doesn't exist. The reason why there are no square circles that can cause other shapes (assuming they could) is because square circles don't exist. Does a square circle have no rules to prevent the creation of rectangles? It has no such rules but since there is only nothing (no rectangles or triangles for that matter), there is nothing to prevent. A square circle has no rule to cause something either so it can't cause something. If there was something 'it has no rule to prevent,' again, that would be self-contradictory to 'having no rule to cause things.' That which is self-contradictory is inherently flawed in its approach; so that false approach is to play with nothingness as though it could have rules or no rules.
Nothingness is simply non-existence, and giving rules or no rules to it is a false approach because it has neither rule nor no rules. Having no rules is itself a rule. So you can't have nothingness with a rule of no rules since non-existence has no rules. We only have evidence for cause and effect from something, no hard evidence of something from nothing. We observe trillions of cause and effects and not one iota of evidence of something from nothing. Let us rest on the evidence and the evidence alone without having to be cute about rules or no rules. I am satisfied with that fact.
The same atheist also said to me that the mechanics of nothingness need to be explained because nothingness has no mechanics. If non-existence has no mechanics then it would be illogical to insist upon knowing the non-existent mechanics of nothingness. That would be like asking what is color of that distance?
This little exercise, if nothing else, shows the desperation of atheists by their twists and turns, but still remain delusional. Let me reiterate we have trillions of cause and effects and no hard evidence of something from nothing. The atheist is hostile to God so it tries to circumvent this evidence.
