The fundamental nature of this argument means there will never be any agreement. A scientist will need clear, reproducible and quantifiable evidence of the existence of God before they will be convinced of God being real.

The theist on the other hand will not offer any proof of this kind because they think that would be a denial of faith, blasphemy or whatever. A scientist might point out this is a basic flaw in their argument for the existence of God, the believer will say it shows the strength of their conviction (which it may well do, though I think this misses the point).

Thus we have no solid evidence (in the public domain at least) proving the extraterrestrial provenance of UFOs, the plesiosaur theory of the Loch Ness Monster or the possibility of the chupacabra being responsible for the deaths of goats across South America. Or in fact, the existence of God.