Nothing my eye, Something for sure
What about it? Are you thinking that the energy is lost? The collision of an electron and a positron (anti-electron) results in high energy photons. Nothing is lost.
I was not talking about our universe. I was talking about reality, of which our universe is a part.
I think you are trying to say that the argument is sound. Valid just means that it is properly structured. A valid argument can be incorrect.
e.g. All ducks are purple. Martha is a duck. Therefor Martha is purple.
That is a valid argument, but it is not sound because at least one premise is incorrect.
Hid argument is valid in structure, but his premise is unjustified, therefore his argument is not sound.
The argument is worth investigating. It's not proven to be false. My bad, valid isn't what I meant.
As far as is known energy might be eternally existing, or something else exists as an anchor to everything that exists and is the foundation for all things that are contingent.
If our universe is a part of reality then the whole picture of reality is not yet known. Can we know that some part of reality is foundational and self existing through logic?, Or must it be demonstrated.
Is the argument good enough to begin to answer the next question, is there a necessary being?
How do we even know that physics won't change over the long haul? What makes known laws fundamental throughout the whole of the Universe's history?
I see that Josh Rasmussen has a Phd in philosophy. Do you think he is totally ignoring science to arrive at his conclusions?