The 2nd law of thermodynamics … "proves" God exists?

I do not have speakers

The law you refer to has to do with energy not with the existence of Adam and Eve, nor with the existence of God.

Which of the basic philosophical arguments for the existence of God are you trying to fit this in to?

You have not made a case for your claim.

• The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.
• The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.
• The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics/

I still do not see how that proves a being called God who is outside the isolated system exists.

You don't?

How did all the stuff that cannot be created nor destroyed get there in the first place? No more is being created. And none is being destroyed. So it doesn't just spontaneously burst into or out of existence. Someone from outside the system must have put it there.

If the entropy of a system always increases then how is there any order to anything unless someone from outside the system caused it to be orderly?

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/

Also,, without that law, you can not digest food.

"Our gut relies on nerves, muscles, enzymes, and neurotransmitters to properly digest food. While enzymes mainly break down our food, the nerves, muscles and neurotransmitters physically move the food through our digestive tract from the stomach to the small intestine and to the colon. When this happens in a healthy gut, bacteria gets passed through the digestive tract along with the food to its final destination in the colon. Problems arise when something interferes with this process. "https://www.amymyersmd.com/2018/04/10-signs-small-intestinal-bacterial-overgrowth-sibo/

If that law did not exist before the fall, Adam and Eve would have died from the overgrowth of bacteria in their
system. It would be foaming out their mouth.

You are assuming the cause is God which I agree it is. You are also assuming it refutes Evolution which it really does not.
You are using the known fallacy of either or logic when there is always a third or fourth possibility. Some Philosophers claim mater is eternal, others claims it does not exist.

In my video; I asked a question. I asked about a possible; 2nd law of thermodynamics "glitch". And now; I like the way you say this now. And this discussion is now going nowhere fast.

The law I refer to; has to do with the study of matter and energy. Everybody and everything; traces back to its original source.

Question 3: Did the 2nd Law begin at the Fall?
Answer 3:
No, I would not say that entropy/Second Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. The Second Law is responsible for a number of good things which involve increases in entropy, so are ‘decay’ processes in the thermodynamic sense but maybe not what most people would imagine are decay:

• solar heating of the earth (heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classical case of the Second Law in action),
• walking (requires the highly entropic phenomenon of friction, otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden!),
• breathing (based on air moving from high pressure to low pressure, producing a more disordered equalized concentration of molecules),
• digestion (breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks),
• baking a cake (mixing the ingredients produces a lot of disorder), etc.
• What is contrary to Scripture is death of nephesh animals before sin, and suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power at the Fall. He still sustains the universe (Col. 1:17) otherwise it would cease to exist. https://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics
  
  
  
• The above is from a creationist site.

I would've thought was I'm asking is simple enough. Do we trace back to Adam and Eve? And if so; is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics in reverse?

"
From X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.

This is a Fallacy. If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or high probability of the claim being true..

Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

(3) Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.

(4) Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(5) Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(7) Of course X exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

...
Example:

• Premise: If yellow monkeys in the jungle J exist, then you will observe the yellow monkeys in jungle J
• Premise: No observation of yellow monkeys in the jungle J occurs
• Conclusion : There are no yellow monkeys in the jungle J

This would be a VALID argument pattern so if the premises are true the conclusion would be proven to be true. HOWEVER, those who want to hold to the existence of yellow monkeys in the jungle J will introduce auxiliary claims so that the failure to obverse O does not disprove the existence of yellow monkeys in the jungle J..

...

There is the mistake of thinking that there are only two alternatives of a false dilemma:

Premise 1:Either X exists or X does not Exist
Premise 2:You cannot prove that X does not exist
Conclusion: X does exist.
OR

Premise 1:Either X exists or X does not Exist
Premise 2:You cannot prove that X does exist
Conclusion: X does not exist."http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialScien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Since the law you refer to has nothing to do with genealogy, you can not trace back to Adam and Eve.

A non Christian can use the same poor logic to say they traced back to Lucy and they would be wrong too.

It is only another false assumption.

Name the "2nd law of thermodynamics in reverse" and demonstrate it. Such a rule does not exist and can not be proven that it ever existed.

"
“”The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden.
—C.S. Lewis (in a glimpse of clarity)

"

I think this is the jest the OP is trying to prove,

"
Evolutionists claim that science and the idea of God are irreconcilable. “Only one of them can be the truth,” they say, “and you cannot prove there is a God.” However, the Laws of Thermodynamics, which science itself recognizes in its explanations of the phenomena in the Universe, were designed by the Chief Engineer. As expected, they prove to be in complete harmony with His existence, contrary to the claims of evolutionists. God, Himself, articulated these laws centuries ago. At the very beginning of the Bible, the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed when Moses penned, “Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day, God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (Genesis 2:1-2, emp. added). After the six days of Creation, the mass/matter/energy creation process was terminated. As evolutionist Willard Young said regarding the First Law: “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another” (Young, 1985, p. 8). Through the hand of the Hebrews writer, God also articulated centuries ago what scientists call the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment” (1:10-11, emp. added).

The inspired writer wrote in Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Paul declared in Acts 14:17, “Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” The psalmist affirmed, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). Paul assured the Romans, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (1:20, emp. added).

In closing, we return to Lord Kelvin, the Father of Thermodynamics, for fitting final thoughts.

Other links that relates to the topic

http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html
http://www.ler.esalq.usp.br/aulas/lce1302/life_as_a_manifestation.pdf
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate

Yes. I am glad you agree that the cause is God.

I don't know why it would be a fallacy. Either God did it or He didn't do it.

If He didn't do it then how did matter, which can't be created, get created??? That makes no sense, imo. A creator must have created something that can't be created nor destroyed if it, in fact, exists.

I wonder if you don't believe in God if you can admit that something that can't be created nor destroyed but still exists must have been created by a Creator since it doesn't spontaneously come into existence by itself.

It is the either or fallacy. evolution or creation. There are two other claims, one is mater does not exist.
The other is Mater is eternal with the Big Bang as a natural event. Even if we were to eliminate the non-God choices, we still have not proven that God exists. That is a set of proofs within itself.

For the God choice to be valid, we must demonstrate it is possible that God exists using basic philosophical arguments that have been know for centuries. One need only visit a library look God existence up in an Encyclopedia of Philosophy to find out what those basic argument are. Even Intelligent Design is not a new argument. It is just an variation on one of the well known basic existing arguments.

I needed to take some hours; before responding to this. Are you comparing the Creator of the universe; to a figment of my imagination? Did you watch my video; or are you not interested?