Given that God is omnipotent, you can always build a narrative where God is responsible for science and whatever future. You can't make the concept of God smaller. At best you can make a religious narrative irrelevant.
But you also don't need a religion to play with the concept of God. And you certainly don't even need God to have a religion.
If he(?!?) is omnipotent, he's a massive douche.
Or as Epicurus put it:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
One of the many problems with this argument is it presumes that your personal moral compass is objectively and universally true.
I don't mean this to argue otherwise - it is my personal belief that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God with reason alone, thus why the argument has lasted for millenia. The mass of texts written to do one or the other are worth, in my opinion, for nothing much besides exercising your mind.
Or you're just asking the wrong question. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"; "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Our language has the ability to frame nonsensical dichotomies.
Or to put it another way, perhaps you're asking for a three dimensional array, but you want its contents to only have two-dimensional qualities. Or you want force and acceleration, but no mass.
You assume God's goal is human pleasure. What if it was human growth? A person never grows more than in the struggle of life. What if it was human freedom? Freedom means that evil must sometimes be permitted in the face of overwhelming power. What if it was something outside of human imagination?
You want a God that hands out straightjackets and drugs. I think he has a higher goal than that.
Epicurus doesn't assume anything here. If the 'higher goal' involved human suffering, then why would you condone that and worship the originator of suffering?
If your god would be a real person, you would not just accept 'oh, but I have a plan!'
If you really believe what you're saying, I hope you don't eat fish, or own jewelry, or use coal or oil derived power, or watch sports that have a non-zero rate of player injury, or eat at restaurants that use grease friers or knives, or any number of other commodities that are directly or indirectly the product of human suffering.
I can't really empathize with someone who sees no value in suffering. Suffering is not the ultimate evil, and pleasure is not the ultimate good. Go read some Cicero. He tears Epicurus a new one in much better language than I can muster.
Many believe God does not have the power to be other than what God is. If God is existence itself, then evil, as humans understand evil, seems to be within God, just as it is within each of us.
But you also don't need a religion to play with the concept of God. And you certainly don't even need God to have a religion.