The short of the long here is that "effectual truth" has a nonexistent track recording in regards to defending its truth value as opposed to its efficacy value; this is what lends itself to such skepticism in serious epistemology.
As is currently defined by every religion I am aware of, gods cannot be found through human effort to observe them (not in a way that I feel is conclusive at any rate).
Platonism, or the backbone of Christian thought, posits a super-rational noetic faculty capable of ascertaining the moral intelligibility of the universe. What makes this "inconclusive," in your eyes? Arguing that it's not "verifiable," as Touka has done, would be a category mistake: in modern phrasing, because it presupposes an effectual standard of truth, making it circular; in Platonic terms, because it confounds the second (sensual) and fourth (noetic) levels of the divided line.
Then we come to a series of claims, which I simply have to call into question because they are so central to your worldview. Let's start from the top:
1: Reality exists independently of myself.
As you yourself have admitted, this is a leap of faith. How can you pretend that your philosophy is "rational" when its underlying foundation is arbitrary? How can you criticize religion when it seems to do the exact same thing?
2: That which I observe exists independent to myself.
[...]
Because the truth then is not relevant given that I can never hope to find it.
The first part of this claim doesn't follow. Even if reality exists independently of the observer, this doesn't mean we can know what is "really" independent and what is "really" just a byproduct of flawed human perception. It's the classic Kantian thing-in-itself problem; we simply do not have access to how reality "really" is.
I highlight the second part of your claim only because it seems to contradict your appraisal of effectual truth. Even if truth isn't true, why can't it be useful?
3: Truth remains truth regardless of time passed.
4: The universe changes in an ordered manner.
Both claims can be umbrellaed under the same objection: without a God, what compels the universe to follow a strict set of natural laws? If it just happens to be perfectly ordered, then why couldn't it just happen to become a state of disorder tomorrow?
--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9