Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[IDScience]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist until man defined it. Entropy is a property of the universe.

Things don't exist until they are defined? Seriously?. Things can't be defined until they are first conceptualized theorized to exist. So by your definition the laws of quantum physics did not actually exist until we defined them into existence, and the earth was not actually round until it was first believed and defined as such. That's a good one

Yes entropy is a property of the universe, and the universe is not eternal, that's why I said "before the singularity"

Did you know that the sum of all energy in the universe is calculated to be zero? Therefore, none of it existed before the Big Bang, which was not necessarily a singularity. In Hawking's no boundary proposal "there would be no singularities, and the laws of science would hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe.

In order to know the sum of all energy in the universe is "calculated at zero", you would need to be able to measure all the negative and positive energy in the universe, which can't be done, so the "zero energy” universe is not testable, thus not scientific. Also you would need to be able to simultaneously calculate and measure all the energy in the other dimensions of string theory, and/or other universes of inflationary cosmology to insure no energy was being borrowed, which also can't be done.

The "zero energy" universe is a unfalsifiable non-testable theory invented by atheists, because they need a "something from nothing" hypothesis so they don't need to explain the cause.

But the causeless "something from absolutely nothing" universe hypothesis creates another big problem for atheistic science. If something can actually pop into existence from literally nothing, and without a cause, then all things just popping into existence become equally probable. The flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, or a God, all have the exact same probability of popping into existing as the universe does because there is no initial cause to derive a conclusion from

If you are going to explain why a flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, or a God do not have the exact same probability of popping into existing from nothing, you must be able to explain "because" or be-the-cause. And since you claim there is no cause to make predictions from, all things, no matter how absurd, become equally probable

Therefore by your logic, it might be a good idea for you to get a flying spaghetti monster auto insurance policy, just in case one does not pop into existence in front of your car while your driving. I bet you could get a good rate.

That is woo for which there is no evidence. Do you have a proposed mechanism?

And the "something from nothing" universe also has no evidence and can't be tested. My theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics, and simply uses eternal energy coupled with mathematical odds. If it was proven our universe existed forever in its current state, the chances of abiogenesis in a primordial soup would become 1/1 simply by virtue of odds+eternity=absolute certainty

Must? Really? How does it do that?

How does any life arise and evolve from non-life?. If your going to argue against the tenets of your own theory, I cant take you seriously anymore

Must? Your conclusion does not follow.

And all of evolutionary science disagrees with you. Time and chance is the hero of the evolutionary plot. They all agree, the more time you have, the greater chances you have. Thus all eternity = absolute certainty