It's an old response to an equally old question, but any god worthy of the appellation would already know what evidence would convince. That such evidence has not been forthcoming we should conclude - what? That the god/s do not want to convince? That non-accepters have been blinded to the evidence which so convinces the faithful (this alone opens up a whole new raft of questions)? Or perhaps that there is/are no god/s available for the experiment? This is where the principle of parsimony applies, advising us to run with the most plausible model that fits the available facts. If indeed the claims of theology are unfalsifiable, that is a problem for theological claimants. I would submit, however, as I have expounded at length elsewhere on this forum, that anything which causes a physical event in the Universe absolutely is within the realm of scientific investigation and falsifiabilty, even if we lack the means at present to detect it. Conversely, anything which cannot cause physical events in the Universe (and thus beyond the reach of science) is by definition outside the system and can be safely ignored as irrelevent and extraneous.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
