If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I'd bet no. But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that's right. I'd be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.
I remember a story about Clarence Darrow, who was quite atheistic. Somebody asked him: "Suppose you die and your soul goes up there and it turns out the conventional story is true afterall?" Darrow's answer was beautiful, and I love the way he pictured it with the 12 apostles in the jury box and with his reputation for giving long speeches (he spoke two straight days to save Leopold and Loeb). He said that for once in his life he wasn't going to make a long speech. He was just going to walk up to them, bow low to the judge's bench, and say, "Gentlemen, I was wrong."
- Stephen Jay Gould
That's really going to p*ss off Athena!
Except Huxley was wrong. It is *not* an honorable position, but a cowardly one. I freely admit that it would be a great weight off my mind to *know* the truth, but I don't. Instead, I have faith...and occasional doubts: this is, evidently, what God intended by not providing any physical proof of his existance (the sort of proof that science could use).
Agnosticism is the practice of hedging your bets, of being afraid to be right or wrong: it is *not* honorable, IMO.
Tuor