Alright. So this is officially my first post I’ve ever written online, or at all even, and it is simply intended to present an interesting idea I had.

There have been many times where I’ve wanted to write a post, on this, or that, or discuss this thing over here. I’ve never actually followed through on any of these ambitions though, and I won’t lie; it’s a little nerve wracking to finally do so. This being said, however, while leaf blowing the lawn of a family friend, an idea popped into my head. While this does happen quite often, I usually either forget, or begin to see holes in such an argument and discard it. This idea contrary to the fate of its predecessors has managed to break both barriers successfully. What is this idea? Well, it’s a new approach to how science can disprove the existence of a (perfect) God.

Of course, this theory can not undeniably prove against the presence of all powerful beings, due to the fact that it is based on (you guessed) other theories. However, there’s also a theory of gravity, so I decided why the heck not. I’m sure that many of you have noticed that I placed the word perfect in parentheses as well. This is because this theory works best with a God that is perfect, although I haven’t thought through how it might work with an imperfect deity (and if a deity is imperfect, is it even a deity anymore or simply a powerful life form?). Why does it depend on the inclusion of a relatively simple description of a God? Well, plainly said, Perfection is the weakness.

This may seem just somewhat contradictory, as perfection is the definition of unflawed, and without weakness (at least in this application). And I of course expect some people to draw the conclusion that I have written an article based on the thesis of Perfection is impossible, and that is why God is impossible, and how many others have made that connection before me. If this be the case for you, then I am glad to disappoint you, because I would not take my time to write an entire article on such a weak and defeatable argument by the theists.

Now in order to explain my theory, it is necessary to explain the scientific basis for this claim. First, is to discuss the state of our universe.

The universe is inherently unstable on a cosmological timescale. Each natural process is a step towards a higher total enthalpy, and a step closer to total equilibrium. As the universe approaches equilibrium, everything in it decays further and further. Heavy elements radiate energy and decompose into smaller atoms, which in turn, decompose into smaller yet atoms, until they have decomposed into hydrogen. Hydrogen (as well as other preemptively decaying elements) then decompose into protons, electrons, and neutrons. These then decompose into their composing particles, and the cycles continue until they have decomposed into nothingness. This is the ultimate heat death of the universe. This heat death of the universe is total equilibrium due to the nature of natural processes. This then equates to ‘perfection’ as it is no longer ‘flawed’, or unstable. Because of this, the current state of our universe is in instability, and thus imperfection. This applies to everything, including any all powerful being, making any being in existence to be inherently flawed (synonymous with instability in this application) simply by its existence. In effect, I believe a satisfying statement for the first postulate of a godless universe to be: “Perfection can only truly be achieved by complete nothingness, and as such, existence is imperfect.”

My second supporting explanation is rooted in the total energy of the universe. It is stated in many religious texts that the Deity being worshiped has always been, and has no beginning or end. In contrary to this, scientific studies have found that the total net energy of the universe is zero. This exciting discovery has proven to be one of the observations needed to prove theories of how the universe could in fact come from nothingness. In addition to this, I believe that it can disprove the existence of an everlasting super being as well. The presence of such would result in a net positive or net negative energy, which is not what has been observed. In result of this, I find that a suitable second postulate to be: “Nothing is everlasting; everything has both a beginning and end.”

The third and final statement primarily addresses a ‘catch’ if you will to the second. In the second statement, theories on the creation require a small amount of energy to initiate the process of existence of a zero net energy universe. Many theists would assuredly try to use this as a flaw to disprove the theory. However, quantum theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle detail an additional theory to the creation of this energy. It is theorized that small particles of matter and antimatter spontaneously appear, collide, and eliminate throughout the vacuum of space, or ‘nothingness’. This not only provides an excellent explanation for dark energy pressure, but it also theorizes that occasionally, particle pairs last long enough to create the initial spontaneous burst of energy sufficient enough to spark the creation of the universe (after this, they annihilate each other, in conformation to the conservation of energy). In conclusion, the final postulate will be: “A net zero energy universe can be created without the existence of a deity.”

To conclusion, I present the final theory of a godless universe:

The theory of a godless universe consists of three basic postulates:
The First Postulate states that “Perfection can only truly be achieved by complete nothingness, and as such, existence is imperfect.”
In accordance to the first postulate, a perfection is attainable in the state of nothingness, and therefore a perfect deity cannot exist in our universe.
The Second Postulate states that “Nothing is everlasting; everything has both a beginning and end.”
In accordance to the second postulate, a supernatural being cannot exist before or after the existence of our universe, therefore a deity cannot exist outside of our universe.
The Third Postulate states that “A net zero energy universe can be created without the existence of a deity.”
In accordance to the third theory, the universe is not dependent on a deity for creation, therefore explaining existence in natural phenomena.

These three postulates together determine that a perfect deity cannot be created from existence, nor exist outside of existence, eliminating the possibility of such a deity. Additionally, this theory presents a formation of the universe not dependent on any such deity to exist.

This concludes my first post ever written, and I hope it is enjoyed by readers and inspires atheistic philosophy. I understand that this theory has weak points as well, and I would appreciate any constructive criticism you may have!