Op opened himself up to the criticism by the statement to which the replies originally started.
OP replied to a comment that essentially says science doesn't limit itself in a way that is relevant to the discussion. Sure, science can't really effect something literally outside of reality, but if it's literally outside of reality then it doesn't matter, and isn't what religions are referring to. "We cannot comment on it's likelihood", sure, if it's literally outside of reality, but then we'd still have absolutely no way to infer that it exists, religious sentiment itself wouldn't be possible. They presume to have interaction with, or at least knowledge of or instruction from, the real deity.
To address your point, does a deity like you've described matter? Use as an example the reality of the Diablo fictional universe. In that theology/history/story, there was Anu and Tathamet. Anu existed before anything and was everything, he desired to be pure and perfect, so he cast off his evil and impurity. Things were good for a time, and only he existed in a pearl, but eventually what he cast off coalesced into Tathamet. Anu and Tathamet fought, the only beings inside all of existence, a pearl. Their final blows killed each other and released all their energy, which caused creation to happen. Anu's body became the heavens, Tathamets body became the burning hells, Angels were born from Anu's spine, Demons from Tathamets body, and the story of Diablo begins.
In that universe the existence of Anu and Tathamet are literal realities, and it can be seen by the powers of the angels/demons/humans/etc. Their body parts are obvious and do supernatural things.
Even with their reality though, what does belief in them matter? Anu transcended and has no part of the universe, Tathamet presumably did the same or just ceased to exist. You can acknowledge their existence and fundamental necessity to realty (Anu's eye bound creation together like a lynch pin, Angels and Demon's owe their existence to the two, and humans owe their existence to Angels/Demons breeding.) Everything in that world is derived from and ultimately governed by the reality of the two "deities", but acknowledging their existence or believing in it does nothing.
You could use that knowledge to pursue things, or perhaps the alignment of one of the deities seems agreeable to you so you dedicate your life to their principles, but ultimately the believer and the unbeliever in them are in the same spot.
There's no point in believing in a "fundamental force" deity. There's no benefit and there's no discernible difference in the life of a believer or unbeliever because the deity isn't an actor in any form. If the deity was an actor in any form, such as "god" being something like Karma, then it's not a non-acting fundamental force and should be in some way observable. Good people would tend to live longer, get luckier, etc., Over time we'd see a clear trend and there'd be reason to believe in it. If the effect of the deity is indistinguishable from random chance, then belief in it is pointless and ultimately a waste of time and energy.
If the scientific method, which isn't limited by technology, of generating hypothesis and testing them with in an observable way cannot be applied to a chosen subject, then the subject is ultimately pointless. Even something like morality or consciousness we can test, though perhaps not ethically. Does consciousness exist if i cut out this part of the brain? How about this one? What are people like if raised in a vacuum, are they moral, do they go insane, etc.? Testable, though ultimately unethical.
A deity that doesn't interact, can't be observed and ultimately has no effect other than perhaps binding things together or causing creation is pointless. If my life is exactly the same regardless of that deity, and there is no afterlife, then belief or disbelief are irrelevant.