First I shall start with the three laws of thermodynamics.
1. First law of thermodynamics mandates the conservation of energy.
2. The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
3. The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero.

So by this law, or thus proven and has not been disproven thus far.

These laws have only been validated in closed systems, not in the open universe, and there is scientific controversy about every single one of them. That said, the religious counterargument would be that God is not subject to laws of nature.

The fact is that if it is a system, it is closed

Closed versus open systems are quite easy to grasp. They're covered in middle school level earth science.

The economy is an open system. The system of economics interacts in highly complex ways with external systems, most notably natural resources and demographic systems, both of which change as a function of time. It can therefore never be entirely modeled, accounted for, or understood.

Nonsense.

Glossary of systems theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Open system (systems theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Closed system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is easy to say that the digestive system is open because it is open on both ends, but it is closed in most respects to the other systems...

The things, systems are wholes

You're confusing "self-contained" with "closed". The digestive system is open everywhere. It's open to the remainder of the body throughout its entire length. It's regulated, but it's regulated extrinsically.

Just because your conceptualization is finite and delimited doesn't mean that the system is.

Closed systems probably do not exist at all in nature, but for experiments and for modeling sufficiently closed systems are possible. Take a heat-proof container, fill it with 37 degree water, drop in a -37 degree ice cube of fixed dimensions, close the lid, and measure the temperature change... the system may not be 100% closed from the world, but it's sufficiently closed to learn about thermodynamics. Do a similar experiment with gas and you can actually derive PV=nRT.

Yet, it is also closed to the rest of the body from end to end...

it is also a subsystem of a larger system working in concert with other subsystems, but they are all closed.

if there is no such thing as a closed system then there is no such thing as an open system... In fact, all systems are systems, and they all closed in their essential elements...

Aedes;100070 wrote:

That is completely wrong. It is not closed. There is a selective barrier, but things from the body, like bile and IgA and pepsin go in, and things from the gut like sugars, electrolytes, water, amino acids, and bacterial toxins go out.

What you do not grasp is that all you suggest is a part of the process of the system... I am sure you would not have the intestines nicked in any fashion which would open the system to the rest of the body except through appropriate channels... A system is a grouping of elements set together for a certain object...As you look at digestion you see that it is a complex system, and yet only a subset of a larger system, the body... And it is complex... I was told recently that 8% die without cause, which means without a cause that can be determined after death...If you look at systems, they are all like links on a chain... Not all links are closed, but no chain has a half link... It may be considered sitting unused, but no chain is better than one force and one reaction....It does not matter what it does, but that at any moment its elements are fixed... Energy is not an element, but a condition...This condition does not define systems but can be used to differnciate between them... When the process is complete, if the system has been designed well, then the system will have produced more energy than it has consumed... An automobile as a system takes gas and maintainance, but after all it should help one to make enough to pay for it...The same with digestion, that it should give one the energy to go hunting for more food... Sytems can be designed to work once and fail, or be destroyed in the process...The whole process of producing a nuclear bomb created the system for making bombs; and the subsystem responsible for its detonation was destroyed by working as designed...It was like a row of dominoes...

Quote:

They are not all closed.

That is not how the terms are used. All "closed" systems have caveats, namely that they're not 100% closed. But In many cases it doesn't matter, the systems are closed for the purposes of understanding the nature of variables that are only insignificantly modified from outside. This is manifestly NOT the case with any biological system.

Fido, let's not derail this thread any further with this. You're taking an idiosyncratic view of an established scientific concept, which is fine so long as your mind is a closed system.

So, we can therefore state that any creation of the world from nothing, was physically and theoretically impossible.

The earth had been created billions of years ago

You say that earth had been created.

Obviously, only God can make the impossible.

Obvious how? You are assuming since the question posses a problem you can just say that god can do the impossible. I want to see your evidence of such. If you can't provide any evidence then your statement is conjecture. It is a hopeless hope.

You can't make something that exists for ever. It produces a contradiction. If if has the nature of coming into being then it MUST have in it's nature the same ability to cease being.

a god is exempt from that rule? Then by all means all characteristics of god would be nothing more than a made up fairytale.

Krumple,
By any philosophical definition God is a person who is not subject to time,

He had never been created, He is the one who had created the universe.

Yes God is not under the rules, He is setting the rules, including laws of thermodynamics etc. If you do not accept the definition, then at least please kindly explain what is your concept of god and what in your view is the difference between god and man?

Yes, but ABSOLUTE ZERO EXISTS wheater or not a scientist can isolate it in the labortory.

The very concept of ABSOLUTE ZERO speaks of a field of existance that is Omnipresent ---in the same regard as the Hindu Script speaks of 'Brahman'.

If it appears that ABSOLUTE ZERO is unachievable in the lab ---yet intellectually graspable ---then we have stumbled upon the missing link in the Title of this thread.

Long before one reaches ABSOLUTE ZERO we must travel through layer upon layer of infininitely 'Finite' sub-divisions of space/time ---whereas lore speaks of a Transcendent realm out side the influence of TIME. For example, 'The soul is eternal'.

Just because reality can be conceived of does not mean all we conceive of is real...

...Do we really have a concept of God???

. . . since "concepts" = "knowledge" ~we have no true knowledge . . .

Is absolute zero a concept... Temperature is a concept, but all absolutes are infinites

You can't have a timeless motion. It make no sense. Time is movement. Time is change. If you have no time, you have no change, thus you can't do anything. You can't think, You can't make anything, you cant do anything at all peroid.

Once again, how do you know this? Sounds like conjecture to me. Making it up because it suits how you want things to be, but where is the evidence for this theory?

god is a figment of human imagination.