Something can't come from nothing

I look forward to seeing the angle you take on this. Before I begin, I’m going to lay out some definitions so we can avoid confusion: Special pleading is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first. The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense, since it focuses on the lack of justification for either: Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"). Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors I have met are very unhappy"). Infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, . .. , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity. Argument 1: The idea we’re arguing (something exists, nothing can’t cause something, therefore something caused everything), otherwise known as the cosmological argument, can be expressed as follows: Proposition 1- Something exists Proposition 2- Something cannot be caused by nothing Proposition 3- In accordance with proposition two, something caused proposition 1 Proposition 1 is provable interpersonally, for me because I’m able to write this, for you because you’re currently reading it; therefore, proposition one is both logically valid and logically sound. Proposition 2 is not provable, here demonstrated mathematically: X= “Complex design [or at least the illusion of it] (existence)” Y= “A creator (something)” X has always implied Y up to this point, so where Y is absent, X is inherently absent as well. E. G. -Complex design requires a creator in every instance observed thus far, so without a creator, existence could not exist- This is a formal fallacy, demonstrably so using only a priori justification, hereafter provided: If the only time I’ve ever cried is when I was depressed, and I’m crying, then by the use of the same logic employed here by the cosmological argument, I must be depressed. To consolidate, other possibilities may exist, but they have never been witnessed, so inherently cannot be true. Any reasonable person can see this outcome is not necessarily correct. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because I haven’t been seen crying for other reasons doesn’t mean it can’t happen. So let’s draw a parallel; tears (existence) are visible, therefore depression (a creator) must be the cause. This statement is obviously inaccurate, and as consequence, so must be the one we argue. It can however be argued that the longer you don’t see something you’re looking for, the less likely it is (if you’re looking in places it should reasonably be), but because this argument hinges upon the absolute statement that something cannot exist without something to create it, such a finding cripples the argument (The problem of induction, #1). Just because no one has ever witnessed something brought into existence by nothing, does not necessarily mean it is impossible. It should also be pointed out that no one has ever witnessed something brought into existence by something either. I could use the exact same structure with exactly the same outcome (a dead end at the same formal fallacy) to make the claim that something cannot be caused by something, only by nothing. Proposition 3 is irrelevant if proposition two isn’t universally applicable. The bottom line here, I believe, is that the statement we’re arguing is an absolute, and in order for an absolute statement to be logical, absolute evidence is required. I have demonstrated that, in this case, absolute evidence, using posteriori or priori justification, is impossible to achieve. This is the first portion of my argument. Argument 2: Ignoring the fact that the absolute statement made in proposition two is based upon a formal fallacy, consider the implications if it were true; if it actually were provably universally applicable that “something cannot be caused by nothing”. The argument itself (as defined for this debate) expresses the creator of everything as “something”. The implication would therefore be that the something that caused all other somethings to exist must have been created by something; this leads to infinite regress, which is a logical impossibility. To win this debate, both arguments presented here must be debased, for both are of complete detriment to the pro position.