Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I have heard this argument said by believers often, most the time in a response to non-believers.
Now the argument has many problems itself: It presupposes a "nothing", presupposes that "you can't get something" from this nothing and in traditional human egoistical arrogance it presuppose that humans actually understand and know such details about existence. Not to mention that establishing it as true advances our knowledge nowhere, as it neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods.
Now what I find most interesting about this statement is that it is a theistic response to what appears to be nothing at all. I have never heard a non-believer claim that you can get something from nothing and therefore God must not exist. As far as I can tell, this is a one-sided argument that is a theistic position unrelated to actual atheists.
So my question: Is the argument "You can't get something from nothing" a type of straw-man argument?
Now the argument has many problems itself: It presupposes a "nothing", presupposes that "you can't get something" from this nothing and in traditional human egoistical arrogance it presuppose that humans actually understand and know such details about existence. Not to mention that establishing it as true advances our knowledge nowhere, as it neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods.
Now what I find most interesting about this statement is that it is a theistic response to what appears to be nothing at all. I have never heard a non-believer claim that you can get something from nothing and therefore God must not exist. As far as I can tell, this is a one-sided argument that is a theistic position unrelated to actual atheists.
So my question: Is the argument "You can't get something from nothing" a type of straw-man argument?