This is about training in argumentation. I use a text from R. Carrier: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/468, where he claims that from nothing everything follows. (Don't get shocked, the article is not long, it's the comments that make it look long.)
Carrier basically defines nothing as no thing/fact plus logical necessities like mathematical truths. He makes an argument where he uses probability theory to claim that the probability is almost 1 that universes would arise from nothing. He can because probability is a logical necessity in the sense (and I simplify heavily): |= If Kolmogorov's axioms + stuff then probability theory, and he said that logical necessities are always there, even in nothingness. But my problem is that it's also a logical necessity that "If Kolmogorov's axioms + stuff + setting any probability to zero then P(anything) = 0.
So he basically takes one logical necessity and assumes its premises to come to his conclusions whereas other logical necessities would make his conclusion to collapse. I'd tend to see his argument as valid but unsound. What (if at all) is foul with his argument and what is the technical term for it? (Please just focus on my problem described here, any other reasons for his argument to fail, maybe overlooked in this discussion.)