If you choose not to answer my question, I will assume that it is because the answer is embarrassing to you. I claimed that no evidence would be considered complete to you, and asked you to correct me if I were wrong by telling me what evidence could possibly satisfy you, i.e., be considered complete. You never presented any. It is reasonable for me to assume that I was right.You can assume if you want. But you would be wrong to do so.
Your fundamental belief is based on nothing but the desire to believe.As of yet, all that is presented as fact is only theory. While it is fun to entertain theory and speculation. I don't think it is wise to change ones fundamental beliefs based on them.
Nevertheless, none of that is relevant. I didn't ask you about existing evidence. I asked you what evidence would be good enough for you to call complete in principle, fairly certain that there was none.
I don't think you did. You said, "As to your hypothetical situation. I could die and conclusive evidence would be before me. Even then though, I would question what was before me. Because it would be a possibility that I was hallucinating."I did give two examples. One where I was proven wrong. And one hypothetical, that would prove me wrong.
You not only didn't specify what you meant by conclusive evidence, you indicated that it wouldn't be conclusive for you.
You needn't respond again if it isn't a specific example of evidence that would convince a faith based thinker like you that you are wrong about your god, assuming that you were. Barring that, I consider the matter settled.