Then I must have been mistaken when I detected skepticism in your statements on the subject of abiogenesis ─ as though you didn't want to believe the path from chemistry to the first self-reproducing cell might be possible.
All fundamental forces of reality are concepts in individual brains;
To the extent that we represent them by abstractions and generalizations, yes.
To the extent that we name phenomena in the world external to us, which we perceive by our five senses, no.
For instance, you can drop a brick on your foot and notice how it fell downward. A phenomenon ─ which we generalize as gravity─ is at work, with objective existence, one that's there whether anyone's there to think it or not, is at work.
We can walk up to Bishop Berkeley and say, "George, when a tree falls in the forest, we have excellent grounds for thinking it will create vibrations in the air whether anyone's around to hear those vibrations as sound or not. And where we come from, we have instruments that will determine whether that's correct or not, even if there's no human mind within a hundred miles of the place."
we can only observe the effects, never the causes.
Of course we can observe the causes. You can drop a brick on your foot, and note that the cause was your releasing the brick in a position where it was free to fall, and this happened to be above your foot. And you might have foreseen this because you could feel the weight of the brick, the force acting on it, before you let it go.
Did you ever see a video of dark energy
Dark energy is presently the name of a problem, not a thing.
you can never see the causes
I showed you above that with gravity at least, you see them all the time. With the others you may need apparatus eg such as CERN has.
or know its fundamental nature
But to the extent that this may be true at present, at least science, and more generally, reasoned enquiry, are actively seeking to understand the fundamental nature of nature, while accepting there are no absolute statements, no statements protected from unknown unknowns.
Supernatural belief, on the other hand, isn't even looking. And it's all very well to stipulate that God is omniscient, but ─ given a real God ─ how does God in fact know that there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know? Isn't omniscience an entirely imaginary quality, whereas 'weight' is a generalization about observable phenomena?
I’m only saying that part of reality must be a brute fact that always exist/uncaused, otherwise no caused entity can be explained.
I see no impediment there to our present procedures of learning what we can, and adding to it where we can, by systematic programs of enquiry.
God is not a physical entity within spacetime that reflects light so you may record it on a video.
Then the ONLY way God is known to exist is as an idea in a brain. No brain to imagine a god, or hold the concept of a god, then no god.
You can't even have a video of any fundamental force within spacetime for that matter; you can only observe the effects not the causes.
As I said, you can drop a brick on your foot, and watch the cause and the effect. And if you want to know what we presently think is the best way to account for the phenomenon of gravity, go to Wikipedia and see if anything has seriously displaced Einstein's curvature-of-space notion.
God as the initial cause for everything in existence (including the universe and spactime itself) is not subject to the confinements of spacetime or any physical law of any kind.
But God exists only in minds, like Superman. Search reality for them, and the only important difference is that if you find a candidate for Superman you'll be able to test for Supermanness, because it's much described, but you can't find a candidate for God because God has no description as a real entity ─ and there's no definition of Godness, the real quality that God will have and Superman (and Superscientist) will lack.
You’re making a logically fallacious “infinite regress” argument. I’m telling you the beginning must be a brute fact.
IF the universe MUST have been created by a sentient creator, THEN the sentient being in turn MUST have been created by a sentient creator, who ...
While IF the sentient creator does NOT require a sentient creator, THEN the universe does NOT require a sentient creator.
What fallacy are you speaking of?