How would you call Alice, a person who holds the following beliefs.
Note how Alice is not sure about anything.
Belief categories are arrived at via well understood principles of epistemology
Most labeling of our beliefs does not follow the recognized categories of epistemology, which uses a four category criteria:
Note that none of these categories involve "proof". Criteria that call for "proof" of a belief are demanding an impossible standard fallacy.
Mapping these categories onto agnosticism, theism, atheism, and uncertainty -- the term "agnostic" was invented explicitly by Thomas Huxley to describe the "incoherent/not-even-wrong" category for theism, as an even stronger critique than "atheism". It is often inappropriately applied to "current uncertainty" relative to theism, but this is muddling of two very different categories.
All theists and atheists are and should be open to reconsidering their views -- all all people are on all empirical questions. There is no need to distinguish between "strong" or "weak" working hypotheses.
As almost all theist speculations have testable consequences, only people uninterested in the answer should be completely uncertain about theist claims.
Regarding Alice and the three questions:
This is correct, but not significant. One cannot prove or disprove ANY empirical question. Proof is the wrong standard to use.
Using the correct standard of supporting or contradicting justifications, theist claims are evaluable, and if Alice cares about them, she ought to have collected the cited supporting and refuting justifications, and reached a judgement based on them.
This is untrue, Alice has a false belief. Proof is impossible, as noted above.
Given the creative, generative, or miraculous powers that are assumed in theisms and theistic worldviews, IF the world has inexplicable divine silence, THEN that is actually significant contrary evidence against those theist views.
It is possible that some very very weak theist claims are still as yet unevaluable, and possibly this is what is being meant here.
This is just accepting the refuting case as a reasonable working hypothesis. Alice is an atheist.
Weak agnosticism.
Also called "soft", "open", "empirical", "hopeful", or "temporal agnosticism", weak agnosticism is the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgement until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out.
An agnostic atheist is someone who considers the existence of a god or gods to be unknown or unknowable (agnostic), but currently holds or is inclined to think that gods do not exist or they lack a belief in any god or gods (atheist).
That's not an uncommon label among atheists who debate against theists.
Combined with the other answer, if they think it might possibly become known at some point, you might call them a weakly-agnostic atheist or an atheist who's weakly agnostic. I haven't ever heard anyone identify as such. The weak-vs-strong distinction of agnosticism seems to be of little practical use, when there's no means for how we could go about finding out whether a god exists (and when so many people still think they do know a god exists).
Of course, people pick their own labels, and it's most constructive and respectful to let them tell you what labels they use (within reasonable limits), rather than trying to prescribe labels to them.
Some people dislike calling themselves an atheist, because they view that as claiming that no gods exist (strong atheism) rather than merely lacking a belief in a god or gods (weak atheism).
Some people don't call themselves agnostic, because we don't tend to call ourselves agnostic about the existence of Hogwarts or Bigfoot or the truth of whichever conspiracy theory, despite not technically being able to disprove those. It seems more useful to make a meta-note that non-existence can't be proven, and then define gnostic/agnostic for specific claims to be the spectrum between "as sure as one can be, considering" and "I just have no idea" (that is a useful distinction that communicates something about one's own position, unlike just calling everyone agnostic).
Some might consider themselves to know that some gods don't exist (e.g. if the god claim is self-contradictory or reality doesn't match what we'd expect if such a god exists), while they're agnostic about the existence of some other gods (e.g. ones that don't interact with our universe in any way).
Alice's position could be described as a combination of "agnosticism" and "weak atheism" (or non-theism). Here's how:
Agnosticism: Alice believes that it is currently impossible to prove or disprove God's existence and acknowledges uncertainty about whether it will ever be possible. This reflects the agnostic view that knowledge of God’s existence is either currently unknowable or inherently unknowable.
Weak Atheism/Non-theism: Despite her uncertainty, Alice leans toward the belief that God likely does not exist, though she does not claim to know this for certain. This makes her a weak atheist (as opposed to a strong atheist who asserts outright that God does not exist).
Alice might not want to label herself definitively because her beliefs are more about uncertainty and openness to future evidence. If she rejects strict labels, she could simply say:
"I don't know if God exists or if we'll ever know, but I currently lean toward disbelief."
A person like Alice might be better described by their reasoning process rather than a fixed label, which aligns with your earlier sentiment.
Well... If Alice wants to be a real freethinker, she needs to grow a spine. Because this isn’t so much a stance but a number of evasions. In reality it's a carefully curated position designed to avoid any real intellectual commitment. Let's not label it with the words that can mean whatever, but let's dissect this collection of Alice's "beliefs"
'Not possible to prove or disprove now.' Well, that's something, I suppose. A bare acknowledgment of a lack of empirical evidence. A step up from the 'faith' brigade, but that's hardly a high bar.
'A small possibility in the future.' The old 'maybe someday' gambit! A desperate grasping at straws, an attempt to keep the possibility of a divine magic man alive – just in case! Utterly unscientific and, frankly, quite lazy. It’s like saying, 'Maybe someday we'll find the lost city of Atlantis and the evidence will finally prove it was inhabited by a benevolent god.' It's a non-falsifiable claim.
'Currently inclined to think that God does not exist.' This is the only part that shows any glimmer of hope, but even this is hedged! Not a firm conclusion, mind you, just an 'inclination.' Like you're feeling a little bit chilly, and might maybe put on a sweater if it doesn't inconvenience you too much.
The Burden of Proof
The point is that the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those making the extraordinary claim — the claim of a divine being, a cosmic consciousness, a supernatural intervention in the universe. It is not up to us to disprove a fairy tale. We don't need to prove that unicorns don't exist before rejecting that notion. We can be reasonably certain that there is not a teapot orbiting the sun, even if we can't prove it, and we don't owe it any consideration.
And yeah ofc you can call her a tentative atheist or a weak agnostic, but I think it's not about philosophy, it's about her psychology. Alice doesn't want conflict, she wants to evade the questions cause probably she doesn't even care that's what it is all about.
And maybe she is right in that, who are we to judge?
