Counter to Cosmological Argument

Authors note: This post was a counter response to Matthew (@Redsox_239) who said he'd respond:

but instead did this:

Ah well, I got an interesting post out of it.

****

Matthew (M): "Okay so two options on the table..Necessary being or Necessary Substance (like energy). Its true that both of these would avoid an infinite regress, but the former also makes a lot more sense then the latter."

Me/Bruce (B): I disagree. We know energy is necessary for existence & that it exists. Also, thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. So eternal energy fits with known physics. An eternal being is an unsubstantiated claim, so obviously eternal energy makes more sense.

M: "A Necessary being has a non-physical necessary mind, and comes with intelligence and ability to create"

B: There is no evidence a mind can exist without a physical structure such as a brain. So this is purely an unsubstantiated claim.

M: "A Necessary substance is simply an existing substance. To create it has to have the ability to do something by itself."

B: Nature has the ability to do things by itself via the four fundamental forces, although this is at risk of anthropomorphizing nature.

M: "So it would have to be conscious. It would have to be intelligence to create a variety of contingent things, and power to do anything. This just starts to sound like a necessary being."

B: As noted above, nature has forces in place that remove the need for a concious being to create things. Eternal energy is just energy constantly changing its state, something we know happens, in fact, it's something we see & do  every second of our lives. Breathing, fusion in stars, walking, eating, water boiling is all just energy changing it's state. No intelligence needed for energy to change state.

M: "So clearly a being makes much more sense. Maybe you know about cosmic fine-tuning. This could perhaps be seen as supporting evidence for a being rather then just some substance as necessary."

B: Nothing clear at all about it. An eternal being requires unsubstantiated claims & presuppositions. With eternal energy, it's unsurprising energy would eventually hit a state that can support life as we know it & it's wholly (pun intended) unsurprising we find ourselves existing at a moment when this is possible since it's the only possible time we could exist.

So in conclusion, I think I have soundly shown that a concious being is not the most probable option since it requires going against known physics while eternal energy fits perfectly within known physics.