Substitute rabbits for apples and you can have the Fibonacci sequence. What could you prove with that?

Here is my point: If the necessary consequence of a hypothesis is impossible, then the hypothesis is false. For the hypothesis 'Something can come from nothing', a necessary consequence is that 3 apples could logically result from 2 apples; because the third apple could come into existence from nothing. But we agree that "I+I=III" is mathematically impossible; thereby making the event of 3 apples resulting from 2 apples impossible.

Conclusion: the hypothesis of 'Something can come from nothing' is false.

For the hypothesis 'Something can come from nothing', a necessary consequence is that 3 apples could logically result from 2 apples; — Samuel Lacrampe

It's so not a necessary consequence. I thought you knew how to use quantifiers.

This is getting old.

It's so not a necessary consequence. — Srap Tasmaner

To be more specific, which following statement do you disagree with?
1. If a thing can come from nothing, then an apple can come into existence from nothing.
2. I put 1 apple and another 1 apple in a closed system. Then a third apple comes into existence from nothing, thereby resulting in 3 apples in the closed system.
3. From statement 2, we conclude that "1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples" is possible in practice.
4. I+I=III is impossible.

Alright. See you later.

"It is possible for something to come from nothing" is not the same as "It is possible for anything to come from nothing."

Interesting claim. If I understand you correctly, you reject the proposition that "anything can come from nothing", and say that "some things can come from nothing, and some things cannot". I also take it you agree that apples are part of the things that cannot, as demonstrated in the I+I≠III argument (unless you see a flaw in that argument).

What follows is that the things that can come from nothing must escape the I+I≠III argument. Is that correct so far?

I expressed no opinion on the apples and don't intend to. It's just logic: "I can eat something" is not equivalent to and does not entail "I can eat anything" or "I can eat everything."

I agree with you that 'some' does not necessarily mean 'all'. But it is also just logic that there are only 3 ways to see the proposition: (1) everything can come from nothing, or (2) some things can come from nothing and some things cannot, or (3) nothing can come from nothing.

Looking at (1): the I+I≠III argument must be addressed, because it contradicts that proposition.
Looking at (2): those things that can come from nothing must escape the I+I≠III argument.
Looking at (3): it is compatible with the I+I≠III argument, and unless (1) and (2) can be defended against the I+I≠III argument, then (3) becomes the only possibly true proposition.

Sorry, man, there's no way I'm going to discuss whether "Nothing comes from nothing" is true. Best of luck to you, Sam.

You are missing out on a really fun conversation. But as you wish. See you later.