Board Thread:False Info and Speculative Discussion/@comment-13188083-20140902153836/@comment-6383956-20140903213029

That's total bull, Jester. It was in the context of an entire thread and everyone but Paul and you who was involved in that thread understood exactly what I meant. As was stated by several others in that thread. I really didn't post in this thread with the intent of going rounds about this again, so drop it. You are wrong. End of discussion.

And, obviously, you don't get the "we don't know until we know" reasoning since you're still here arguing against it. (And, yes, you are.) "Does 'x' exist?" "We don't know." I have seen Paul give that as a canonical answer for a multitude of questions, so it is a valid answer. If there is a possibility of it existing, then that's your answer. You can't say "it doesn't exist" when you're striving for accuracy if we don't know. It's misleading, at best. Because if you're stating something as fact it does have a bearing on the future. Paul is consistent about that when it comes to theories posted here -- the existence or lack of existence of a supernatural creature should be no different.