Making statements like “if I see/experience X, I will accept the existence of God” can be dangerous, in that you then will be trapped even if X in the end turns out to have a completely rational and non-supernatural explanation. In my opinion, a better take is Matt Dillahunty’s, which is much more open-ended and puts the burden of proof on the theist and god side:
I have no idea, specifically, what would change my mind about the existence of a god. But if there is such a being as a god, then one would think that god knows exacly what would change my mind, and should be capable of taking the action to present the case that would change my mind. And this hasn’t happened. Which means that either this god does not exist, or this god doesn’t want me to know that he exists. Yet. Either way, it’s not my problem.
This is a transcript from this video, starting at 4:16. The link will direct you to the quote, but please listen to the entire video. I find it interesting. And after a lot of introspection, I agree with Dillahunty here, and I also find this the best approach I have seen so far. It is not my responsibility to search for evidence or proof in favor of a god i don’t believe in or don’t believe exists. Rather, it is the god’s responsibility to make evidence or proof available for me, in a form that is convincing…for ME.