What would make me accept the existence of a deity?

[Angrboda]

How does one judge whether something is a god if not by the effects? What criteria would "rule in" a god? It sounds like you would rule out any and all potential gods. If they have a method, their godhood is technological and not real; if they have no method, you eliminate the hypothesis as being an argument from ignorance. It sounds like you've rigged the game so that no god can possibly win. That seems to make your disbelief as irrational as the belief of those who accept a god based on too little evidence.

Keep in mind that the very thing that qualifies one as God rather than a sufficiently advanced being is the ability to literally do the impossible. So to prove that you're God, you'd have to 1) do something impossible, and 2) prove that what you just did is impossible. That doesn't make sense, which is appropriate, because doing something impossible requires you to do something that, on some level, just doesn't make sense.

So I don't think there's any way that first-hand evidence could rule in God's existence. I might go up to 3 at highest on the Dawkins scale, but no more.

Well, I thank you for your candor, but I find the answer troubling. For one, you conclude that whatever evidence a putative god might provide, it's always possible that theses effects were brought about technologically. This seems to imply that, at least in your scheme of things, "anything" is possible (except the impossible, which is defined by what is possible). If you accept that "anything is possible" as a premise for ruling out a god (the actual is possible by definition), then I would have to ask why you don't apply the same "anything is possible" standard in hypothesizing the existence of a god? It seems the maxim provides irrefutable evidence both for the non-existence of a god and irrefutable evidence against the exclusion of a god. And the reason is because you've abandoned evidence as a means of deciding whether there is or isn't a god. This sounds like classical agnosticism: not that god does or doesn't exist, but holding that knowledge of god's existence or non-existence is impossible. If we take the proposition G being "God exists" and conclude that no evidence of any kind could demonstrate that it is true, that seems every bit as faith based as the position that no evidence could prove it false. It seems like you've simply defined god or gods so that they can't exist; if you're going to simply use definitions to rule out gods a priori, why not simply say that you rule out gods because circles aren't squares or blue isn't green; ruling out something by simply defining it out of existence is not any more reasonable than ruling that god exists regardless of what the evidence does or doesn't show. Both are arbitrary and unfalsifiable.