The Logical Empiricist would, rather stupidity. I would too, but intellectually. I would rule out God, because 'it's immature' if we're talking about an intelligent creator. The Logical Empiricist would say, it's not accomplishable through scientific method, thus God doesn't exist.

:pray:

Depends on the g/G type defined. Insofar as a LE assumes the statement "There is a g/G" is cognitive (i.e. propositional), predicates ascribed in scriptures, by theology, or from testimonials (i.e. religious experiences) that entail testable evidence which differentiates existence from non-existence are required.

Examples:

a. A 'both creator & intervener' g/G? Yes.

b. A 'creator-only' g/G? Maybe (if QG is taken into account by a LE).

c. An 'intervener-only' g/G? Yes.

d. A 'neither creator nor intervener' g/G? No.

:naughty:

NB: By 'intervener' I understand agency that causes changes in or to the (scientifically) observable, physical, world (i.e. nature), independent of the agency's alleged provenance (i.e. natural or supernatural), which are therefore also (scientifically) observable. E.g. "parting the Red Sea", "raising the dead", "curing incurable diseases via intercessionary prayer", "flooding the world", "creating the world c6000 years ago", "being on both sides in a co-religionists' sectarian / civil / holy war", ... IN GENERAL: "suspend 'conservation laws' with each 'miraculous' transformation of a natural person place or thing", etc