FWIW, a man admitted to having set up the Big Foot hoax. Though some still believe in it.
> The proposition "Non-human civilization exists" belongs to the same category
> even if it differs from the previous proposition in that we may never have
> an effective method of determining its truth value. That is why some people
> have faith - a belief that the said proposition is true, even though we will
> most likely never be able to know one waay or the other.
how about non-human civilizations on other planets? isn't it likely that at least one exists in the universe? (billions & billions of stars and planets...)
> But the proposition "God exists" is different from the other two because it
> the determination of its truth function is impossible not to the limitation
> of human knowledge and methodology, but because the proposition itself is
> meaningless. Unlike "Big Foot" or "Non-human civilization," the word "god"
> has no meaning at all. We may not have precise definition of "big foot" or
> "non-human civilization" but we at least can define some empirically
> meaningful features that the objects designated by the concepts may possess.
> We cannot do the same about 'god' without running into blatant absurdities.
> An anthropomorphic creature running the entire universe? This is absurd on
> its face. Some nebulous "force" or "spirit"? This is replacing one
> meaningless word with another....
I don't see why there can't be something that exists that is currently beyond our understanding. In Edwin A. Abbott's FLATLAND, the two-dimensional critters have no understanding of three-dimensional ones. Isn't it at least possible that there are four dimensional critters that we can't understand? (String theory says that there are a bunch of different dimensions.)
-- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl M., paraphrasing Dante A.