Yes I agree your conception of the word 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 all energy 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.