I have some questions for the posters here.

[The Grand Nudger]

What's the point of accusing people of holding a position that they do not when you're not prepared to discuss that same position with a person who does hold it?

---

Let me give you something to ponder.  Why would it be unknowable whether or not entities we created for effect had an independent existence, part of which, per the claim, that they created our world?  How might a thing we've created create the world in which we live before the fact of our own existence?  Now, mind you, I'm not asking you whether or not you agree that we created gods, I want to know why you think the answer to the question of a gods existence, as you describe them, would be unknowable. 

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?