Vlad,
It’s not a false dichotomy at all, because…
In which case if “God” “creates” energy then you opt for option 1; if “God” “sustains” energy though then presumably it was there anyway for him to sustain (ie, option 2).
Which do you prefer?
In which case energy wasn’t there all along (also option 1).
Nothing has been “spelt out” at all. Your continued ducking and diving is obfuscation, not spelling out.
Did that car crash of a sentence mean something in your head when you wrote it?
But by “the universe” are you including or excluding energy from that conjecture?
What “we” don’t know is why anyone should take your conjecture “God” seriously at all, let alone your un-argued and un-evidenced notions of how He goes about His supposed activities.
Actually I’d rather you stopped lying and finally attempted a cogent argument for this god of yours, but as there’s precious little chance of that it seems we’ll have to endure your continued ludicrousnesses, personal re-definitions of terms and endless evasions instead.
Oh well - new year, but same old Vlad eh?
Yes I agree your conception of the word CREATE is not up to the job of describing the ''notion of sustaining''. Because it completely explains AWAY without tackling the nature of a hierarchical chain of derivation.
You have therefore played the intellectual fascist/pirate role again and deliberately fixed creation as a point in time.
I'm afraid if being can be eternal, something you and others have argued for then dependent being can be particularly when ability is observed to be derived.
In short nothing you have said addresses the derived power/actual power dilemma.
In maintaining eternal being without actual power your argument is going to remain illogical.
As I said, start polishing.
There is no ducking on my part. Just your avoidance of the logical.
Once again without the actual the derived cannot be. Energy is change and therefore derived.
If energy is eternally sustained then without God it ceases to be.
If it is eternal then a God who finds it clearly isn't and is derived.
That leaves everything as derived and that is illogical since where is your actual.
Actual power is unavoidable if derived power is observed and it is.
I'm afraid that rather leaves you as the naughty schoolboy of whom the teacher reports
''if only he spent time and his intellectual capabilities learning rather than on avoiding learning.''
As I said if the universe has a moment where it popped out of nothing that is a change and therefore that has to logically be derived power and therefore there has to be actual power.
If it doesn't then I'm afraid there is, has been and will be forever more only anything here because of actual power and the complete eternal dependence of it.
As far as the unseen hordes apparently watching me committing intellectual suicide are concerned I think they are being treated to more than enough instances of bruised egos lashing out.
Listen toots.
I'm having a blast at the moment but maybe you just need time to adjusting to the new realities of New Vladdism and I think your gradual acceptance of your logical dilemma your intellectual efforts are landing yourself in.
