Does God exist?

[Lunar]

I guess I'm just a sad agnostic.

If you're agnostic, you believe that God exists.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic&x=0&y=0

one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

An agnostic is someone who believes that there is some sort of power out there, but not committed to a specific religion.  An atheist says that God does not exist.  That is what my OED says anyways, and that is what I'll go with.  Want to clarify your beliefs?

I'm agnostic under the definition I gave above.  I've never heard of the definition you gave before, but, then again, I never really read my Oxford dictionary.

[The Dowager Mod]

God is a theory just like evolution.

[Emsworth]

Like I said, try not to be an idiot.  I didn't phrase it properly, and I made it quite clear in the post to go with your instincts.

At the risk of being accused of idiocy by Richard, this has nothing to do with instincts, intuition, or the like, which are in my opinion poor guides in fields like these.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Well, I can't prove it, but I choose to believe God exists.  If you can't say for sure one way or the other, then don't you lose more by leaning no than by leaning yes?

[Giant Saguaro]

Yes, I certainly believe so.

[Emsworth]

If you can't say for sure one way or the other, then don't you lose more by leaning no than by leaning yes?

Please explain... I hope you don't mean to refer to Pascal's Wager.

[Cashcow]

I believe in higher power, so yes.

[opebo]

Sure, but only within individual's fantasies.   A more interesting question is - what sort of psychological conditions would lead a person to ask such an obviously nonsensical question?

[Lunar]

Well, I can't prove it, but I choose to believe God exists.  If you can't say for sure one way or the other, then don't you lose more by leaning no than by leaning yes?

I refuse to be intimidated by the concept of 'hell.'   As I said, if God is truly a bad being and sends decent people to a lifetime of torture in hell, then screw him.

[A18]

I believe in higher power, so yes.

I thought you were Jewish.

And Lunar, unless you're saying you're a perfect person, sending you to hell does not make the hypothetical god a 'bad being.'

[JohnFKennedy]

Write-in: The answer cannot be empirically determined, and the question is therefore moot.

Nor is it analytic, logical positivism. The only problem being that the whole concept of the verification principle, that a statement is meaningless unless it is empirically verifiable or analytic is wholly self-contradictory as there is no analytic or empirical evidence to show the statement to be true thus it falls foul of its own requisites..... Still, gotta love Ayer, Wittgenstein etc etc.

[MasterJedi]

Yes

[Emsworth]

The only problem being that the whole concept of the verification principle, that a statement is meaningless unless it is empirically verifiable or analytic is wholly self-contradictory as there is no analytic or empirical evidence to show the statement to be true thus it falls foul of its own requisites.....

How unfortunate! Then again, there are those who do not accept Hume's dictum, on which this principle seems to be based.

[JohnFKennedy]

The only problem being that the whole concept of the verification principle, that a statement is meaningless unless it is empirically verifiable or analytic is wholly self-contradictory as there is no analytic or empirical evidence to show the statement to be true thus it falls foul of its own requisites.....

How unfortunate! Then again, there are those who do not accept Hume's dictum, on which this principle seems to be based.

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. (Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding)

Do you accept Hume's dictum/fork?

[Emsworth]

Do you accept Hume's dictum/fork?

I certainly do. The division of reasoning into experimental reasoning and abstract logical reasoning seems to be perfectly correct.

But there are those who appear to disagree, like Kant.

[Cashcow]

I believe in higher power, so yes.

I thought you were Jewish.

Wh/

[A18]

Dazzleman, I am Jewish.

[AkSaber]

Yeah, I believe God exists.

[Gabu]

I guess I'm just a sad agnostic.

If you're agnostic, you believe that God exists.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic&x=0&y=0

one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

An agnostic is someone who believes that there is some sort of power out there, but not committed to a specific religion.  An atheist says that God does not exist.  That is what my OED says anyways, and that is what I'll go with.  Want to clarify your beliefs?

Language was made for communication.  If you're using it to actively squelch communication, you're not using language correctly, regardless of what the OED might have to say on the matter.

Regarding the question, I really have no idea, but my personal belief is that it's likely to be "yes", so I went with that.

Write-in: The answer cannot be empirically determined, and the question is therefore moot.

How is the question moot just because it's currently impossible to determine its answer scientifically?  Not much into philosophy, I take it.

[Max Power]

I believe in higher power, so yes.

I thought you were Jewish.

Jewish people believe in a god as well.

[A18]

He qualified it as 'higher power.' Jews believe in a specific God.

[© tweed]

I'd say no.  Either that or god let me down on march 17, 2005.

[Cashcow]

Then I'm not Jewish. Whatever. Everyone says I'm Jewish, so I get equally stupid comments when I deny my religious "heritage."

[Emsworth]

Write-in: The answer cannot be empirically determined, and the question is therefore moot.

How is the question moot just because it's currently impossible to determine its answer scientifically? 

It's moot from a scientific perspective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Philosophy does not tend to approach matters with the same rigor as science. This question is most appropriately answered from a rigorous scientific perspective, not from an arbitrary philosophical one (unless we take in to account logical positivism). It's as much a question for science as, for example, asking someone to determine the velocity of a particle.

[ilikeverin]

Yes, in a way that is somewhere between the Deist understanding of Him (I use Him because Him/Her is just too clunky, and It is too impersonal) and the Christian understanding.