[Arryn]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
The definition of "reasonably proven" I'm using for this debate is looser than you seem to be wanting to use - any theory that has carried through on a reasonable number of tests will suffice for these purposes.

The more extravagant the claim, the more rigid must the proof be. If I claim to have a degree from MIT (I don't), you might believe me. If I claim to have seen a UFO, I'd be asked to provide photos. If I claimed to have been abducted by ETs and that they did experiments on me, I'd have to (at the very least) show that I had been missing and show physical evidence on my body of having been 'probed'. If I claimed to *be* an ET, you can be assured that I'm going to be rather thoroughly examined -- by a psychiatrist if the physicians find nothing.

I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can.

As Zap pointed out, the (current) laws of entropy *begin* at time=0 (the bang). The laws do not apply, do not exist prior to that point. And time also begins at that point. There is no such thing as "big bang minus 3 days". Time has no mathematical meaning before the "bang". Ergo, the universe is not infinitely old. (And it does not have infinite energy either, even if it was infinitely old.)

Your whole "proof" falls apart because it is based on bad assumptions and outright ignorance of cosmological physics.

BTW, had your assumptions been correct, the proof would still have failed because you did not rigorously derive God from the presented facts. You jumped to a conclusion.

It'd be the same thing as saying "I see an object in the sky I cannot identify, so it must be a Russian bomber". It *could* be a Russian bomber, but it doesn't *have* to be one. It could be almost anything.

Ignorance of reality != proof of God. QED