Theists: would you view the truth?

[Neo-Scholastic]

You are not presenting your self-professed divinity to a skeptic but rather to a believer who already has established criteria for the reception of such claims.

---

(I am here assuming that my encounter with you does not engender some kind of spiritual gnosis or theophany that removes all doubt. Which of course it hasn't.)
So in your case weighted against the 5W of Aquinas, it is immediately clear that as a limited and finite creature you satisfy none of the necessary and sufficient conditions of general revelation. Your being is not fully in act nor is your existence necessary nor is your being foundational to causation. (Don’t even begin to try comparing yourself to Christ in His Glorified State, because if you do then I would expect you to also present a compelling Christology, something I doubt you are remotely prepared to submit.)
All that said, that does not exclude you entirely from laying claim to other manifestations of the divine. In that case you would have to define your relationship to the God as either a minor deity, avatar, an angel or other holy host, or perhaps some kind of prophet. These types of special revelation are considered in the context of prior special revelation. Whatever message you present would be compared with Holy Scripture for continuity of the tradition. Your prophetic utterances, however cryptic, would be evaluated to confirm that they are not contradicted by the actual events and the events of your life would express the condition of the Word in our time. Whatever actions you perform would be compared with the express purposes found in prior revelations. And although it is not a requirement, the time, place and circumstances of your appearance could be relevant depending on the specifics of your claim.

---

Having satisfied all the above criteria then I would be prepared to acknowledge that you were in some sense divine.

You didn't actually answer the question. The question was not what reasons do you have for concluding that I am not God, the question was what evidence you would require to conclude in the affirmative. There's no trick question here.

---

Just a simple request for the same thing you've asked of atheists, what would constitute proof that you have met an omniscient and omnipotent god. Suppose you're walking home from the store and a voice boomed out from the clouds. Would that be enough for you to conclude you had heard from God? What is your minimum criteria for positively concluding that you've come face to face with the Almighty? Suppose a man appeared in your bedroom at night, claiming to be Jesus Christ. Would you just believe? Refuse to believe period? Would you require the performance of a miracle? What would you do?

---

I think I was pretty clear in listing various considerations: conformity with prior traditions or revelatory expectations, uncanny accuracy of prophetic statements, and reliability of witness testimony.
Evidence means that which is evident. Of what it is evidence requires judgment and discernment. If an everyday person makes an uncanny deathbed prediction I would consider it a real example of precognition whereas I would consider the same coming from a professional mentalist a clever stage trick.