Here is my argument:
Until recently, I considered the pursuit (and eventual determination) of the ultimate nature of reality to be one of the most (if not the most) important goals for me. This is because if God does exist, and I die a non-believer, then I go to hell (and experience eternal misery), and if I follow His religion, I get heaven (eternal pleasure): thus the placement of the pursuit of truth (with regards to God) at the top of my priorities list. In consequence, I did not think that the meaning of one's life could reasonably be found without the discovery of the answer to the ultimate question (Does God exist?).
Reading this paragraph is not necessary. As I did not find an answer to the aforementioned question, I was left without substantial meaning in my life. I went through life half-heartedly, which resulted in a noticeable decline in my grades. As I was tired of constantly lagging behind, I decided to find a solution to the question (that was plaguing me for the last 4 years) in my semester break.
Reading this paragraph is not necessary. Upon primary investigation, I found that the literature is so vast! How would I ever know that I reached the "correct" conclusion? It is probably impossible to be certain about one's apparently robust conclusion; there might be a philosopher out there whose work you just haven't come across, and he has refuted your argument. Moreover, there maybe an argument present that completely refutes your argument, but that argument has just not yet crossed your mind. There seems to be a global doubt always present. There seems to be always more journal articles and more philosophy books waiting to be read.
Reading this paragraph is not necessary. Is it even possible to reach certainty if one doesn't know if he has reached the limit of knowledge itself? How can one be certain if she doesn't know all knowledge? If she doesn't know all knowledge, there is always the chance that an argument, which she is ignorant of, and which also destroys her philosophical/epistemological framework, exists.
Now, let us get to the main part of my question. It does not seem obvious to me that I should look for the truth with regards to the existence of God. It is indeterminate whether or not I should seek the truth about God. Let me explain.
My prior reasoning for seeking the truth about God was that if God does exist, and I die a non-believer, then I go to hell (and experience eternal misery), and if I follow His religion, I get heaven (eternal pleasure). However, my (wrong) presupposition was that only these outcomes were possible. In contrast, there are infinitely many outcomes possible! What about the God that punishes me eternally for seeking the truth? What about the God that is indifferent to me? and so on and so forth. This leads us to a deadlock.
So, it would seem to me that my spur for seeking the truth was misguided. I made naive presuppositions. So, now, I can either seek the truth or not - no choice (clearly) is better than the other one. I can do whatever I want. I am not bound by my devotion to the pursuit of truth anymore.
Is my position a philosophical position, and is it coherent and plausible?