A difficulty you are encountering is that there is not a good widespread understanding of the process of reasoning, and the categories of thought that we place conclusions in, relative to a proposition. Part of the reason for this is that much thinking about reasoning is based on classical logic, which allows only two categories, true or false, to a proposition. Empiricism uses 4 category logic, and is a far more useful method to explain how we think and draw conclusions about propositions.
Empiricism's 4 categories are: a) Currently unable to determine likelihood or not of the proposition; b) intrinsically unable to evaluate the likelihood of the proposition due to intrinsic lack of access to data, or the poor construction of the proposition; c) sufficient support exists for the proposition that it can be tentatively accepted as true; and d) sufficient contrary evidence exists for the proposition that it can be tentatively accepted as false.
Looking at the proposition that the universe may have a creator agent, translating these terms into the common language we use, a) is uncertainty, b) is agnosticism (nobody can ever know), c) is theism, and d) is atheism. From your self-description, I would rate you as a), uncertain, and openminded.
There are a variety of other propositions that are closely coupled with the first one. You mentioned several. Such as is it possible to communicate with such a being, and are any of the world's religions true. For those two related propositions, you appear to be in the "implausible, will dismiss as untrue" bin.
Another related proposition is the ontology of our universe. A God is not possible under materialism, but is possible under spiritual dualism, dualist pan-psychism, or under dual aspect monism (again pan-psychist). If you have not excluded the possibility of a God, you are not a definite materialist. But a god as CREATOR is not really possible for dual-aspect monism or dualist pan-psychism, as the God would not precede the existence of matter, so you are not saying you hold by either of those ontologies as fairly certain either. This suggests you are ontologically also uncertain, and openminded.
The particular God concept that you lean toward as most plausible is Deism -- a creator is not currently communicative or interactive in the world. Deism is difficult to acquire evidence for or against, but acts of creation do leave a mark on the universe -- that is the sort of thing that Paley's Watch example relies upon, and the SETI program searches for. The apparent fine tuning or our universe for life to exist is one of the things that would support Deism. It is not enough evidence to convince most people, but the Fine Tuning concept is an avenue to evaluate the Deism proposition, an prevents agnosticism from being the most appropriate judgement on Deism.