That doesn't mean what you think it means.
Let's look at your argument for this.
The Second Law doesn't state that the universe is running out of usable energy, nor that everything tends to become more disordered and chaotic. The Law states that, in a closed system, entropy tends to a maximum. Whether the universe constitutes a thermodynamically closed system, and whether the Law even applies, is an open question. Remember, the Law is a mathematically derived result from a number of premises.
The first law, by contrast, is an empirical observation historically called a 'law'. Many conservations laws have been proposed as a result of tenacious observations, and physics has done nothing if not shown them to be false (e.g., the conservation of parity).
A marvellous quote that once held pride of place in my signature. It carries such weight because it necessarily follows from its premises, and since its premises are so general, it applies pretty much everywhere. Of course, in those circumstances where those premises don't hold, the Second Law doesn't apply, not even in part.
So your attempt to use thermodynamics to prove the universe can't be eternal, relies on little more than a naive understanding of its laws. Simply put, it is unestablished whether the premises that imply the Second Law, hold for the universe at large. For all we know, it could well be an open system in a larger multiverse wherein the First Law doesn't apply.
I'll debunk the rest, while I'm at it.
Emphasis mine. This is a common misunderstanding of the theory. In truth, it merely postulates that the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a tiny, hot, dense state to its current form. Nothing in the theory, nor indeed anything in science, implies that the universe actually began then. Rather, neither quantum mechanics nor general relativity let us probe further beyond it - as good as they are, they simply don't accurately model such high-energy physics, so they don't work under such conditions. Again, one must be careful not to confuse technological or theoretical limitations, with an actual barrier.
It's a pretty common myth, mind you. Outside of theoretical physicists who've studied the theory in depth, it's convenient to think of the Big Bang theory as the 'start' of the universe, just as it's convenient to think of infinity as the 'largest number' or the second law of thermodynamics saying that 'everything decays'. But convenience is all it is.
Most of the confusion arises from physicists' oversimplification of the 'early' universe - indeed, such a phrase would make the layman think that the the Big Bang was the actual start of time. Hawking himself has taken pains to clarify this, saying that we are allow to colloquially call the Big Bang the start of the universe because it may as well be. A car's life 'begins' at the end of the factory line, that's merely a reference to form.
This is a nuance you don't seem to have grasp, Elioenai26. What more proof do you need of the colloquial nature of your 'expert testimony, than quotes like, ""Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang."
In other words: the universe 'began' inasmuch as its current configuration traces its origins to the start of the Big Bang. But, there's no indication that space, time, and energy only came into existence at that moment.
