On the Absurdity of Charging that From Nothing, Nothing Comes is an Informal Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance or Argument from Ignorance)
The reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin is the a standing proof, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that from nothing, nothing comes.
Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin.
The only fallacy on display by those who argue otherwise is the stupidity that the standing axioms of human cognition and the historical fact of empirical experience are subject to the mere secondary, indemonstrable potentialities of human imagination. But the ultimate substance of this ridiculous allegation is the scientifically indemonstrable presupposition of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, a hidden/undisclosed apriority not put into evidence by the antagonist.
It's a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.
As I wrote elsewhere:
Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.
All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!
In all forms of logic the proposition that from nothing, nothing comes would in fact be assigned a truth value, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen. Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.
Logic proceeds from justifiable true belief/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.
The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind, which yields the construct of a transcendent consciousness of ultimate origin, stands in logic, and the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands in science!
Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
An argument only the religiously insane could accept.
I'm guessing that, as with so much of your proselytizing, you simply ignore the self-refuting nature of your babbling.