GvNG: “Tipping Point” query

This is something of a sidebar to the previous post, which ended so naturally that I could not bring myself to continue it. In the his tipping point post, Kirk says this about his own balanced faith:

The tipping point to agnosticism was 5 points in evolutionary theory. The tipping point back to God was to learn that those 5 points were either fraudulent or found to be not true.

I’m curious to know what 5 points these are, and if his claim that they were “found to be not true” would be re-evaluated in light of the Index to Creationist Claims. I suspect, however, that this story is quite a lot like the similar “I was an atheist/nonChristian” stories told by evangelists like Kirk Cameron and Lee Strobel, where it means “I didn’t really care about religion until I converted,” “I went through a period where I kind of doubted my faith, but now I don’t,” or “I made up/exaggerated this story to demonstrate how bad nontheists are/that I know where they’re coming from/that they’re just in denial/etc.,” and not “atheist/agnostic” in the way those words are used by anyone who actually is an atheist or agnostic, where it represents a conscious decision based on self-evaluation and introspection. Seeing that the “deconversion” here was based on points in a scientific theory leads me to believe that Mr. Kirk’s faith is rather weak, or that his agnosticism was more doubt than deconversion.

Incidentally, to the question of “tipping back,” I think I showed fairly well in the post (and again in the comments) that I think the “scales” analogy is flawed, because it posits equal, or nearly equal, evidence for both points of view. However, like any agnostic, and like most atheists, what I would need to believe in God are the following:

1. A definition of “God.” As Bronze Dog is always saying, it’s meaningless to ask “do you believe in Flarschnikit” until you define what a “Flarschnikit” is. Pantheists define God as the universe, most Christians define God as a three-part being with the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, but beyond that there’s nothing but debate. The classical Greeks defined gods as elemental beings with physical bodies and ill-defined magical powers. Until we have some definition for “god,” there’s no sense in debating its existence. A falsifiable definition would be great, but anything specific will do.
2. Proof of God’s existence. The best proof would be something repeatable, reliable, and amazing. Passing Randi’s Challenge would be a good start. But if God came down from the Heavens, proclaimed himself, and did half a dozen impossible things under controlled conditions, I’d be pretty inclined to believe. I don’t do the “faith” thing, not anymore. It’s all positive evidence from here on out.

That’s the important stuff. Of course, I don’t know that that would entail “belief” so much as “acceptance.” I don’t “believe” in gravity, or grass, or air, I accept that they exist. Similarly, if I were shown God conclusively, I’d accept his existence. Now, that doesn’t mean I would necessarily worship him. After all, he’s got quite a lot of explaining to do. There are two God questions in my mind: “does God exist?” and “if he does, does he deserve our praise?”

I have to say, though, I’m not holding my breath until those terms get satisfied, because it seems increasingly unlikely. But if I die and end up in a burning pit for all eternity, my reaction will have to be “fair enough.” And that would be a great answer in the negative to my second question.