Question for agnostics and atheists

[Purple Rabbit]

Oh boy, it seems your statements suffer from what they are describing: total chaos.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing.

Nope, that is not at all what the second law states. Please be sure not to parrot something you do not understand.
What decreases according to the second law is entropy. Not energy. Energy is conserved according to the much appraised law of Energy Conservation, that same law that ensures that miracles like the ones in the bible can not happen. If you use science to prove or disprove things, be prepared to deny facts from the bible you might hold dear. It is not that you can cherry pick a random law of nature and deny others.

Entropy increases as available energy decreases and there is usually loss of some kind.

No, the second law is valid only for isolated systems with constant heat energy. In the case of our universe the heat energy is constantly fed by burning stars, which is basically a conversion of nuclear energy to heat energy.

The term 'usually' is quite funny. Do you mean that the law of nature sometimes has a day off?

All things that follow theese rules would eventually cease to function, thus the degredation.

There is no law of nature that prescribes degradation. Degradation is a moral or ethical value, not a physical one.

If we apply this to the universe it will eventually entropy and cease.

If you apply your version of the law to the universe it will indeed become a messy business, but the universe will not stop to exist (as leo stated already).
Indeed the universe will still be growing, since it expands and its expansion rate is increasing.

If it has an end it is not infinite. If it is finite then it has a begining.

It does not follow from the fact that things have an end that they must have had a beginning. That's pure nonsense.
It does not follow from the fact that things have an end that they must be finite, since they could be infinite to start with.
Also be careful not to mix up infiniteness in terms of volume, with infiniteness in terms of age.

Nature of it self (the weather for instance) proves the chaos theory.

Ah, chaos theory, another poorly understood yet much abused theory to arrive at mystical conclusions.
Tell me, how exactly does nature prove chaos theory? Generally a scientific theory is tested to nature by man and then the theory , if verified, is said to describe nature. Nature does not act as an intelligent agent on its own embarking on a scientific endeavour to prove some theories.

The universe is part of nature,...

Which part of nature is outside the universe??

... thus it started, through chaos it moves and degrades, and is followed by Entropy.

Entropy is not a development phase of nature but a sharply defined physical property of an isolated system.

I agree the earth was formed in chaos. Yes it is a wonderful world.

From chaos, I'd say.

I don't see a contradiction between the movement towards chaos and the scientific method being the next best thing to truth.

When you apply scientific results/theories correctly you cannot draw your conclusion. Also, if you adopt your conclusion you'll have to deny empirical findings, like star formation, you see around you.

I enjoyed your taggy attack, but sadly to say it is no way near a coherent argument.