Okay, so you're arguing for atheism by discounting alternatives. There's no need to go over the complete history of your investigations since I'm an atheist too. You might, though, be interested in the article below, which talks about the role of the philosopher's God or "absolute ground of being" in religions.

I think this discussion of the impossibility of absolutes is somewhat tangential to my article on the endlessness of atheistic explanations, which again is meant to be more sociological.

In any case, applying logic or physics to these absolute concepts seems to miss the point since these concepts are meant to transcend our comprehension. That's the essential theistic possibility. The particularities of nature are supposed to point to their opposite in a prior realm.

And the religious conundrum is why God's purity should have generated the "fallen" order we see all around us. How do the Many relate to the One? If there's no One but just the Many, scientific explanations would seem to be endless as my article suggests. And that's what atheism may entail.