An atheist must believe "something comes from nothing."

The definitions: 1 : not any thing : no thing 2 : no part As can be seen, definition. 2 is the more appropriate for this debate. English words frequently have multiple meanings/uses. Your example "...I turned in nothing" The above example is a causal chain before "nothing". It is an erroneous example as we are discussing the 'beginning'. ""Something comes from nothing" doesn't mean there's some 'negative state of existence,' and all of a sudden it pops out a something. It simply means there is at least one thing that did not come from anything." Again incorrect; negative state of existence if you refer to the definition would be timespace with no parts i.e. nothing. As I showed in R2 'nothing' was never in place at all. There was only the universe. "Next, the accusation that cause is irresolutional. This is ridiculous as well. It is obvious that a first cause, such as the Judeo-Christian god, by the very definition does not 'come from' anything. This is true for naturalistic first causes as well, such as the universe for those who believe the universe did not have a cause outside itself. The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything." I said your syllogism was flawed. That infers nothing about causation itself, its validity or existence as a universal force. Again this is debate is not about any theistic notions of god as the first cause. "The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything." Anything is not the same as nothing. Its use is disingenuous. "My opponent lays out a case where the universe simply existed forever. In this case, the universe itself is the thing which does not come from anything. Therefore, "something comes from nothing" is true here as well, the something here being the universe." Again, the use of "anything" is incorrect. If I was arguing "anything" I would have stated as such. As such your argument here fails again. Saying the universe did not come from anything therefore it came from nothing fails on its own as well. The universe did not "come from", it always has been. "My opponent says he will show more examples of an uncaused universe next round [who knows why he would do that, since CAUSE has nothing to do with the resolution, remember?]. Anyway, I welcome this, and I thank my opponent in advance for his generosity." Wrong again. ;) A self causing universe removes the need of a causal chain therefore "come from" becomes irrelevant; just as relativity and quantum theory remove "nothing" and at times "come from" as well. So I will be "generous" as you put it and provide the most recent theory of a self causing universe. A self causing universe compliant with Big Bang Theory removes all essences of "something coming from nothing". http://www.infidels.org... There really is nothing left to argue. As an atheist, removing god as a first cause does not necessitate the universe "coming from nothing". Relativity and quantum theory both state that at no point was there "nothing" no time when "something" was not there. Attempts to derail the meaning of "nothing" are equally pointless. Regards, Puck