I have some questions for the posters here.

[Frank Apisa]

I did not say "gods exist" was unknowable.  (It may well be, but I never said it was.) 

I DID say that "no gods exist" is unknowable.

If that has to be explained "why?"...you are not capable of understanding.

I'm pretty sure it works the other way around, if you understand something, that implies that you can explain your understanding.  If you understand your skepticism in this regard, perhaps you could explain it.  I, for example, understand my own position on the matter and have very clearly explained my own position to you, again, above.  

Why, if a person can make such an assertion, and that assertion can be true or false, would the existential status of gods be a cognitive black box?  What prevents any interested observer or potential knower from leveraging true assertions toward a valid conclusion that they then claim as knowledge?  Would that hypothetical thing or issue or problem also apply to other knowledge claims, claims like knowing my own name, or whether the sun is currently shining?  Obviously, it would be difficult to speak directly to your concerns about knowledge and knowledge claims unless you can articulate exactly where you veer off the path others might take, or..alternatively, why you feel that the path you also take when making knowledge claims is fundamentally inapplicable to this one item or whatever set of items you believe gods belong to.
There is a VERY remote possibility that someone could KNOW that a god or gods exist. IF there are gods, they certainly can make the  fact of their existence known.

There is NO way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist. There is NO WAY for a 'no god" to inform anyone that it does not exist. 

Like I said, if you cannot see that plainly...you would not understand any explanation.

I already understand that you believe is much, but, again, in the question posed above, I'm wondering why.  I can't address your concerns directly unless you understand what your concerns are, and can communicate that understanding.

It's a pretty generalizable question, gods needn't be the focus.  If some process or action is taken to be a foundation for knowledge claims in any other (or all other) cases, what should prevent that same process or action being categorized as knowledge in any one particular area or with respect to any particular item?  If I know my own name and whether or not the sun is currently shining by plugging sound assertions into a valid inference, what is the difference between knowing those things, and any other thing?

Is it really just that you wouldn't be comfortable saying no gods exist unless no god came and told you it existed?  There are two ways to interpret that proposition.  One in which your criteria for no gods as knowledge has been met..seeing as how no god has, in fact, told you that it doesn't exist - or anything else....and the other in which it's an irrelevant triviality.  Which of the two should I proceed with, or, is there some other issue or problem that needs attention?

In the meantime, I'd like to call to your attention something else I know.  I know that your two statements above cannot be simultaneously true, which is to say that they are mutually exclusive.  It is either true that there is some possibility for a person to know whether gods exist, or it is true that there is no way for anyone to know that gods exist.  Either state of affairs falsifies the other on their face.  

If a thing is possible, it cannot be impossible..and, if impossible..cannot be possible.  Wouldn't you agree?

I certainly agree with that last part. In fact, I agree so thoroughly that I have written almost those identical words dozens and dozens of times in several forums where the subject is discussed.  I usually add that a thing should be deemed to be possible...UNTIL it is established as impossible.

All of that notwithstanding, I state again:  There is absolutely no way any human can KNOW that there are no gods. No way whatsoever.

---

It is stating an obvious truth for anyone with a functioning brain.

How do you know it’s true?

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that it is impossible for any human to know that there are no gods. It is a self-evident, obvious truth.

If you think not...what can I say?

I personally think you are not quite as stupid as you are acting...so my guess is your questions are just part of your trolling. And since I suspect your trolling brings a tiny breath of happiness into what must be a rather sad life, I do not want to discourage you from engaging in it.

Knock yourself out LFC. I am here for you...until you finally drop the axe. Then I will move on knowing I have brought a great deal of happiness into the life of someone I've never even met.

[Angrboda]

I DID say that "no gods exist" is unknowable.

There is NO way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist.

It is stating an obvious truth for anyone with a functioning brain.

All of that notwithstanding, I state again: There is absolutely no way any human can KNOW that there are no gods. No way whatsoever.

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that it is impossible for any human to know that there are no gods. It is a self-evident, obvious truth.

I thought you said that you were withdrawing this claim (see below).  Were you lying when you said that?

As for the "I KNOW you cannot validate an assertion of 'There are no gods'"...I'll save you the trouble of dismissing the claim. I withdraw it...and acknowledge that I was wrong to make it. You are correct that the burden falls on me...not you as a refuter. I was wrong...you and the others who mentioned this are correct.
My bad. I apologize.

[The Grand Nudger]

I certainly agree with that last part. In fact, I agree so thoroughly that I have written almost those identical words dozens and dozens of times in several forums where the subject is discussed.  I usually add that a thing should be deemed to be possible...UNTIL it is established as impossible.

All of that notwithstanding, I state again:  There is absolutely no way any human can KNOW that there are no gods. No way whatsoever.

I already understand that you believe this, I still don't know why, as I've repeatedly explained, as I re-explained in the quoted text you just responded to.

Is there, in fact, any reason at all that you believe as much? So far, the list of objections I've heard from you is a total of one - that I haven't looked everywhere. You're right, I haven't. I also haven't looked everywhere to determine my name or whether or not the sun is shining. There must be something else. What is it? What makes you think that knowledge is impossible...?

[Frank Apisa]

I certainly agree with that last part. In fact, I agree so thoroughly that I have written almost those identical words dozens and dozens of times in several forums where the subject is discussed.  I usually add that a thing should be deemed to be possible...UNTIL it is established as impossible.

All of that notwithstanding, I state again:  There is absolutely no way any human can KNOW that there are no gods. No way whatsoever.

I already understand that you believe this, I still don't know why, as I've repeatedly explained, as I re-explained in the quoted text you just responded to.

Is there, in fact, any reason at all that you believe as much?  So far, the list of objections I've heard from you is a total of one - that I haven't looked everywhere.  You're right, I haven't.  I also haven't looked everywhere to determine my name or whether or not the sun is shining.  There must be something else.  What is it?  What makes you think that knowledge is impossible...?

1) I do not "believe" it. I do not do "believing."

2)  There is absolutely no way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist.

3)  If you are unable to see that...I really do not care.

[Abaddon_ire]

1) I do not "believe" it. I do not do "believing."

You "believe" nothing? I call BS.

2)  There is absolutely no way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist.

You cannot know that. You believe it.

3)  If you are unable to see that...I really do not care.

Clearly, you do not care. The entire internet thinks you are a prick.

You have merely, in Humpty Dumpty fashion, decided that words can only mean what you decide they mean.

How "nice". Look up the etymology of that word.

So I will agree that you have a "nice" idea. Totally wrong, but very very "nice".

[Frank Apisa]

1) I do not "believe" it. I do not do "believing."

You "believe" nothing? I call BS.

2)  There is absolutely no way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist.

You cannot know that. You believe it.

3)  If you are unable to see that...I really do not care.

Clearly, you do not care. The entire internet thinks you are a prick.

You have merely, in Humpty Dumpty fashion, decided that words can only mean what you decide they mean.

How "nice". Look up the etymology of that word.

So I will agree that you have a "nice" idea. Totally wrong, but very very "nice".

The "entire Internet" does not think I am a prick.

If you are not intelligent enough to see that no human can KNOW there are no gods...what I can I tell ya. Maybe this kind of debate is not for you.

[Abaddon_ire]

The "entire Internet" does not think I am a prick.

Wanna bet?

If you are not intelligent enough to see that no human can KNOW there are no gods...what I can I tell ya. Maybe this kind of debate is not for you.

I made no claim that there are no gods. There might be. So far, none have turned up in all of human history. Not a single one. Maybe there is one or ten out there somewhere. If so, they are surprisingly coy. Are they all engaged in some eternal game of hide and seek?

Many theists before you have tried this gambit. It always fails.

Go ahead, follow your playbook handed to you by your priests. See how many give a shit.

Try not to tell others how bloody "nice" you have been.

[Angrboda]

I DID say that "no gods exist" is unknowable.

There is NO way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist.

It is stating an obvious truth for anyone with a functioning brain.

All of that notwithstanding, I state again:  There is absolutely no way any human can KNOW that there are no gods. No way whatsoever.

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that it is impossible for any human to know that there are no gods. It is a self-evident, obvious truth.

I thought you said that you were withdrawing this claim (see below).  Were you lying when you said that?

As for the "I KNOW you cannot validate an assertion of 'There are no gods'"...I'll save you the trouble of dismissing the claim. I withdraw it...and acknowledge that I was wrong to make it. You are correct that the burden falls on me...not you as a refuter. I was wrong...you and the others who mentioned this are correct.
My bad. I apologize.

---

---

If you are not intelligent enough to see that no human can KNOW there are no gods...what I can I tell ya. Maybe this kind of debate is not for you.

Are you going to give me an answer, Frank?

[Frank Apisa]

The "entire Internet" does not think I am a prick.

Wanna bet?

Yeah, I wanna bet. So...how much; how do we decide it; and how could I possibly suppose someone like you would pay off when you lose?

If you are not intelligent enough to see that no human can KNOW there are no gods...what I can I tell ya. Maybe this kind of debate is not for you.

I made no claim that there are no gods. There might be. So far, none have turned up in all of human history. Not a single one. Maybe there is one or ten out there somewhere. If so, they are surprisingly coy. Are they all engaged in some eternal game of hide and seek?

Many theists before you have tried this gambit. It always fails.

Go ahead, follow your playbook handed to you by your priests. See how many give a shit.

Try not to tell others how bloody "nice" you have been.

1) At no point have I ever suggested that you have made a claim that there are no gods. This discussion is not just about you.

2) I have no idea if there are any gods...or what the gods may be like. For you to suppose none have turned up is just a guess...because YOU DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY GODS OR HOW THEY WOULD "TURN UP" IF THEY DID "TURN UP."

3) I am not a theist...and I doubt your "it always fails" as much as I doubt your fantasy that the entire Internet thinks I am a prick.

4)  I have no playbook that has been handed me by any priests, I just am not an atheist...and since you are an example of what atheists are like, I never want to be one.

5)  You be sure not to tell others how bloody "nice" you have been, because there is no way you are even civil.

Anything else, genius? 

---

I DID say that "no gods exist" is unknowable.

There is NO way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist.

It is stating an obvious truth for anyone with a functioning brain.

All of that notwithstanding, I state again:  There is absolutely no way any human can KNOW that there are no gods. No way whatsoever.

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that it is impossible for any human to know that there are no gods. It is a self-evident, obvious truth.

I thought you said that you were withdrawing this claim (see below).  Were you lying when you said that?

As for the "I KNOW you cannot validate an assertion of 'There are no gods'"...I'll save you the trouble of dismissing the claim. I withdraw it...and acknowledge that I was wrong to make it. You are correct that the burden falls on me...not you as a refuter. I was wrong...you and the others who mentioned this are correct.
My bad. I apologize.

---

---

If you are not intelligent enough to see that no human can KNOW there are no gods...what I can I tell ya. Maybe this kind of debate is not for you.

Are you going to give me an answer, Frank?

Sure..."yes", "no", "maybe", "3.141,592,634, 589..."

Fit 'em in wherever you've got room. Careful of your head.

[vulcanlogician]

Consider this proposition, Frank.

There is a 9 foot tall invisible bunny rabbit in your front yard. But not only is it invisible, normal matter passes through it. There is virtually no way for science to detect it.

But it is my belief that this bunny nevertheless exists. Why? Because when I think about your front yard, I'm filled with all kinds of sensations of clover-eating and Easter baskets.

Now, the agnostic position is simply this: it cannot be known. If anyone is going to reject my personal criterion for knowledge (fuzzy feelings) they may say the fact that science not being able to detect the bunny is good reason to think it can't be known whether it exists or not.

So let's say you accept the agnostic argument and agree that it can't be known (or at the very least YOU DON'T KNOW).

One question can still be asked:

Do you believe the bunny exists?

It's a yes or no question, one that agnostics about the bunny can provide an answer to; and we could construct two distinct categories (bunnyist, abunnyist) depending on which answer people give. Simple as that.

Ultimately, I suppose that we could choose other names for such things, and the fact we've chosen these specific names simply boils down to convention. But even if THAT is your position, you still must recognize that the underlying questions (and the answers that accompany them) are still the same. And THAT is the substantive part of the issue, for gods and bunnies alike.