Well, as far as I know skepticism towards a certain claim is not a positive statement.
You are skeptical towards a claim because you're not convinced that this claim is true. However, this doesn't mean that it must be false; it could be true after all but you don't have enough evidence that suggests its truthfulness. And as long as this is the case you are not convinced i.e you are skeptical towards this claim.
If God exists, and has revealed enough of Himself in space/time history, and in verbal, propositional form to hold us accountable, then skepticism about His existence is obviously not the properly basic default position. Such a position in the face of God would be unreasonable and irrational.
If this god had revealed himself enough to me then I'd believe in his existence. But the evidence I've been presented so far does not convince me. The evidence that convinces you of a certain claim is not necessarily enough for me and vice versa. So as long as I can find an alternative explanation to an argument that is made in favor of a god, this argument is not convincing me of his existence. It may be different in your case and you may be convinced by certain facts which are accredited to your god even if they can have other explanations which don't require a god.
No, our opinions would then (or should be) regulated by what He has revealed of Himself Who by definition cannot be a crackpot.
And Santa isn't a crackpot either by definition. So what?
Yes, that is true. But it is also true that because you are not omniscient you also do not know enough to be certain of your doubt.
Then, please tell me, what should be my position? When is doubting OK? (and please remember that I'm not convinced of the claim that your or any other god exists)
That is the paradoxical dilemma. I am assuming for the sake of argument that your doubt constitutes an objection to the existence of God, and not merely an expression of personal doubt. An objection entails a positive claim about the extent of evidence (or lack of) in the external world regarding God's revelation of Himself in Scripture, the external world, and personal, internal experience of God.
Once again, I never said that a god must or must not exist. A god may or may not exist and so far I'm not conviced that any gods exist. But this is true for every claim that is stated in a non-falsifiable way: it may be true but of course it also may not be true and I'm sure that you as well doubt such a claim as long as you don't have any evidence that is convincing to you.
So I doubt because I am not sure. If I were shure the one way or the other, I wouldn't doubt.
....Then, please tell me, what should be my position? When is doubting OK? (and please remember that I'm not convinced of the claim that your or any other god exists)
That is a very serious question. I take it so seriously that I have been pondering the best way to answer for quite some time. I will say this; It is your allegiance that determines your present position. In the context of our overall discussion, in recognition of someone who has gone before, perhaps it might be best if I quote a few excerpts from Cornelius Van Til;
[snip] "...You may think I have exposed myself terribly. Instead of talking about God as something vague and indefinite, after the fashion of the modernist, the Barthian, and the mystic, a god so empty of content and remote from experience as to make no demands upon men, I have loaded down the idea of God with “antiquated” science and “contradictory” logic. It seems as though I have heaped insult upon injury by presenting the most objectionable sort of God I could find. It ought to be very easy for you to prick my bubble. You may be ready to pile over my head bushels of facts taken from the standard college texts on physics, biology, anthropology, and psychology, or crush me with sixty-ton tanks taken from Kant’s famous book The Critique of Pure Reason. But I have been under these hot showers now a good many times. Before you take the trouble to open the faucet again there is a preliminary point I want to bring up. I have already referred to it when we were discussing the matter of test or standard. The point is this. Not believing in God, you do not think yourself to be God’s creature. And not believing in God you do not think the universe has been created by God. That is to say, you think of yourself and the world as just being there. Now if you actually are God’s creature, then your present attitude is very unfair to Him. In that case it is even an insult to Him. And since you have insulted God, His displeasure rests upon you. God and you are not on “speaking terms.” And you have very good reasons for trying to prove that He does not exist. If He does exist, He will punish you for your disregard of Him. You are therefore wearing colored glasses. And this determines everything you say about the facts and reasons for not believing in Him. You have, as it were, entered upon God’s estate and have had your picnics and hunting parties there without asking His permission. You have taken the grapes of God’s vineyard without paying Him any rent, and you have insulted His representatives who asked you for it.
I must make an apology to you at this point. We who believe in God have not always made this position plain. Often enough we have talked with you about facts and sound reasons as though we agreed with you on what these really are. In our arguments for the existence of God we have frequently assumed that you and we together have an area of knowledge on which we agree. But we really do not grant that you see any fact in any dimension of life truly. We really think you have colored glasses on your nose when you talk about chickens and cows, as well as when you talk about the life hereafter. We should have told you this more plainly than we did. But we were really a little ashamed of what would appear to you as a very odd or extreme position. We were so anxious not to offend you that we offended our own God. But we dare no longer present our God to you as smaller or less exacting than He really is. He wants to be presented as the All-Conditioner, as the emplacement on which even those who deny Him must stand.
Now in presenting all your reasons to me, you have assumed that such a God does not exist. You have taken for granted that you need no emplacement of any sort outside of yourself. You have assumed the autonomy of your own experience. Consequently you are unable—that is, unwilling—to accept as a fact any fact that would challenge your self-sufficiency. And you are bound to call that contradictory which does not fit into the reach of your intellectual powers. You remember what old Procrustus did, using his bed as a measure. If his visitors were too long, he cut off a few slices at each end; if they were too short, he used the curtain stretcher on them. It is that sort of thing that I feel you have done with every fact of human experience. And I am asking you to be critical of this your own most basic assumption. Will you not go into the basement of your own experience to see what has been gathering there while you were busy here and there with the surface inspection of life? You may be greatly surprised at what you find.
[snip] If I have offended you it has been because I dare not, even in the interest of winning you, offend my God. And if I have not offended you I have not spoken of my God. For what you have really done in your handling of the evidence for belief in God is to set yourself up as God. You have made the reach of your intellect the standard of what is possible or not possible. You have thereby virtually determined that you intend never to meet a fact that points to God. Facts, to be facts at all—facts, that is, with decent scientific and philosophic standing—must have your stamp instead of that of God upon them as their virtual creator.
Of course I realize full well that you do not pretend to create redwood trees and elephants. But you do virtually assert that redwood trees and elephants cannot be created by God. You have heard of the man who never wanted to see or be a purple cow. Well, you have virtually determined that you never will see or be a created fact. With Sir Arthur Eddington you say, as it were, “What my net can’t catch isn’t fish.” Nor do I pretend, of course, that once you have been brought face to face with this condition, you can change your attitude. No more than the Ethiopian can change his skin or the leopard his spots can you change your attitude. You have cemented your colored glasses to your face so firmly that you cannot take them off even when you sleep. Freud has not had even a glimpse of the sinfulness of sin as it controls the human heart. Only the great Physician through His blood atonement on the cross and by the gift of His Spirit can take those colored glasses off and make you see facts as they are, facts as evidence, as inherently compelling evidence, for the existence of God.
[snip] It ought to be pretty plain now what sort of God I believe in. It is God, the All-Conditioner. It is the God who created all things, who by His providence conditioned my youth, making me believe in Him, and who in my later life by His grace still makes me want to believe in Him. It is the God who also controlled your youth and so far has apparently not given you His grace that you might believe in Him.
You may reply to this: “Then what’s the use of arguing and reasoning with me?” Well, there is a great deal of use in it. You see, if you are really a creature of God, you are always accessible to Him. When Lazarus was in the tomb he was still accessible to Christ who called him back to life. It is this on which true preachers depend. The prodigal thought he had clean escaped from the father’s influence. In reality the father controlled the “far country” to which the prodigal had gone. So it is in reasoning. True reasoning about God is such as stands upon God as upon the emplacement that alone gives meaning to any sort of human argument. And such reasoning, we have a right to expect, will be used of God to break down the one-horse chaise of human autonomy.
[snip] I know that it is not in my power to convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief; it is not a little more probable, or infinitely more probable, than unbelief. I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics, reduce everything I have said to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy."
Why I Believe In God
Cornelius Van Til
Cordially