Gravitational potential energy still requires matter. Your answer does not address the old Leibniz question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Let's say we don't know the answer to that question - in what way does that make "God did it" an acceptable answer? Do you have any evidence for this claim? Do you even have evidence to suggest that this God thing exists in the first place? To the point, how is that answer fundamentally any different than "a wizard did it" or "Puff the Magic Dragon did it"?
I'm going to quote from William Lane Craig, since he can put this more eloquently than I can.
Afleitch's response is good, but I'll give my own.
Craig makes a number of assertions for which he has no evidence. Most importantly, we can't be sure something without time is unchanging. If something it timeless, causality itself as we understand it may break down and it could change without cause. The essential problem is that we have not observed something that is 'timeless', and it's hard to state what something timeless would actually be like.
However, even if we accept his premises he violates his own mention of Occam's razor by adding intelligence to the first cause. An intelligent entity is extremely complex, and as such a personal intelligent entity makes the explanation quite complex. There isn't any evidence to suggest an intelligence is necessary for our universe to have come into existence - all you'd need is, for lack of a better term, a mindless 'quantum universe factory' based on our current scientific understanding.
It's also arguable that transcendence is the wrong term. A state of 'timelessness' may be simpler than a state that includes time. If you look at the world, complex things are built upon simpler things. Take any large animal for instance - the animal is made up of a number of different organs which have complex interactions, but with each organ only having specific functions that on their own are less complex. Each organ is made of cells, which are even less complex than the whole of the organ. Each cell is made of parts which again are less complex than the total cell. Eventually you get down to molecules, which are more complex than individual atoms, which are in turn more complex than the subatomic particles that they are built on. When you get to the bottom would you expect to find something complex or something that is fundamentally simple?
Finally, the plausibility of an answer has nothing to do with the acceptability of an answer. It is only the evidence indicating that an answer is true that matters in that department. If no answer has evidence, then the only acceptable answer is that we don't know. Until one such answer is found then any other answer is tantamount to guessing.
In rainforests with thousands of different species of trees you would expect thousands of predators yet each tree only has one predator. Why because the plant has adapted to survive through natural selection while the predator has evolved itself to become adaptive for that plant. By trying to survive the plant and predator have become dependent on each other as without they can't survive. The predator can't eat anything else. While the plant can't reproduce without the predator speading its seed.
I think you're confusing predator/prey relations with symbiosis. Prey can very much survive and reproduce without predators, and in fact generally fare better without predators. The relation you're talking about describes a situation where both species benefit, which is symbiosis.
Poll
