"The ones you describe as saying, "you haven't convinced me, and I will not be convinced without a different kind of evidence than you offer." - those are the ones I think of as agnostic."

Is that is agnosticism? I don't deny the existence of God or the Gods or endless Gods, and I don't deny that if they did exist they were unknowable. I have, however, zero data that confirms the existence of a deity of any kind and haven't seen any, apart from personal experience which is gloriously unquantifiable.

So I'm open to the possibility God or Zeus whomever, but although I don't deny their existence, I don't accept it either. I'm open to be convinced, but not by hearsay. That might seem like missing the point but as far as I'm concerned if that means I fail the test, so be it.

This opens the possibility if we could somehow detect the presence of God using scientific methodology (perhaps not by direct observation Pete), would She still be divine? Might She simply be a being so old, massive and powerful that Her technology and/or ability to alter the fabric of the universe seem (as the man said) indistinguishable from magic?