All we have is our own perspective. This is indisputable. And we can incorporate into that, as much as possible, others' perspectives. We can incorporate evidences presented by others or found by ourselves (the scientific method). But still, in the end, whatever we say, whatever we believe, will be from our own limited and flawed view ... scientists themselves are people with a perspective, and whoever wants to use scientific findings is a person with a perspective, and this perspective is always incomplete and flawed...
Why do you present these ideas above? I am presuming that you are motivated by a desire to share the idea of a god and the benefits of belief in one to those who don't believe. This often has the tone of man needing help, of being inadequate to live life well without a relationship to a god, or as the believer would say, God. And I'm presuming that is what you are doing when you use the word flawed twice to describe man.
It seemed like initially, you were making an argument for God connected to experiencing or expressing gratitude. Then you began discussing objective and subjective. As I indicated, I get the vibe that I'm expected to be dissatisfied with a godless world view, and in being unable to escape subjectivity. I feel you telling me that these facts should make me look for something more certain, or more substantial, or more permanent.
If that's not your purpose for starting this thread and for making the comments quoted above, what is your reason for pointing these things out.
And if is your point, why is that a problem to you? What makes you find that perspective flawed? I'm good with godless gratitude and inescapable subjectivity.
Like everybody else, I live in my head and nowhere else, so ultimately, what matters is not what's objectively real, how it will impact the conscious observer. Will the result be desirable, undesirable, neutral? That's immediate reality for the conscious observer, not whatever underlies it.
Should the conscious observer care more about the objective truth about broccoli, or how he will experience it? He cares about the former only because he cares about the latter. If he expects to enjoy its taste, he'll eat it. If he doesn't like broccoli, he'll know to pass it up. This is what matters, not abstractions thought to account for that control and predictability of experience.
I am very satisfied being inextricably enclosed in a subjective bubble, as long as it is the case that belief B leads to action A that in turn results in desired outcome D. Belief B comes from in here, and informs action out there. Out there returns sensation to in here. Which is the primary domain for the individual subject, in here or out there? It's the subjective. Ideas about the objective are only useful insofar as they lead to actions that in turn lead to experiencing desired outcomes.