OK – so, you don’t mean that it pre-exists creation, correct? Then, if time has a beginning, then your “unstable energy” does, as well. Therefore, it’s created.
Philosophically, that’s problematic. The universe is contingent – that is, it didn’t have to exist. Given that it exists, it was created, and requires a creator.
So… this is called “an assertion”. It’s not even an argument. As such, we can just shrug and say, “that’s your opinion.”
In any case, I feel like you’re just not getting the ‘necessary being’ / ‘contingent being’ distinction. Here’s a bit of reading to help you out:
Now… asserting that there’s an non-intelligent necessary being makes no sense.
The argument that the universe is created isn’t just possible, it’s required. This whole discussion of ‘contingency’ supports it. Ask yourself: is it possible that the universe might not have existed at all? If the answer is ‘yes’, then the universe is contingent, and therefore, the universe must have been created.
No… it’s only required for your argument, not philosophically necessary.
Umm… among the five ways are demonstrations that creation is, well, created!
I know that this is one of your stock phrases – “creation isn’t logically possible” – but we’ve pretty soundly refuted that claim.
And rightly so.
I give up.