The Existence of a God or Gods is [Currently] Unknowable to Man

I am somewhat bemused that my opponent is contemptuous about my references from “others.” No, contrary to my opponent’s vulgar opinion, I cite “others” because I can wholeheartedly admit that the great minds of the past have said things better than I can ever say myself. For all the pomp and talk he makes about “humility,” I would think my opponent would know better than to be so base in his attack towards my references.My opponent has made reason the final arbiter. But there are so many things that are on par with reason. Is love solely defined by reason? I say nay. Empiricism as he describes it is seriously flawed and the great thinkers of the past have shown why – Logical positivism tried to reduce everything to sense-datum and that was an utter failure (Quine); Noam Chomsky provided a nativistic-intuitive account of language that was not dependent on experience; Quantum Mechanics has shown that common experience doesn't give the full picture of nature; Frege and other Mathematicians have bitterly fought reductionism. I will stop there. My opponent wants to say that the human being is nothing but experience. That is absurd. Rather, sense-datum is dependent on the brain for its source of meaning in experience. What is a table but a table, only after it has been recognized by the brain. Without the brain, yes that object out-there is there in experience, but it’s not a table, and therefore means nothing. Experience is dependent on the brain for its meaning.Now, what are we to say about the the blind, mentally handicap., etc.? Can they fully understand from experience? My opponent would be forced to say they are “less than human.” There is an interesting phenomenon known as Affective Blindsight, where – simply put – some blind folks are able to perceive emotion without any sense-datum informing them: "... investigate perceptual recognition of emotions in the absence of stimulus awareness in neurological populations with lesions to brain areas that are not primarily visual”"http://www.scholarpedia.org...As a “strict empiricist,” my opponent must be awfully embarrassed by the actual evidence that I have against him.What my opponent says about imagination is silly. Imagination is just as crucial to being human as reason! (See Edmund Burke’s imagination as resemblance in “On the Sublime and the Beautiful) I will quote from Albert Einstein – since my opponent brought up Einstein…“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”---My opponent has failed to criticize my case for Coherentism and therefore I assume he concedes my point. Now that I presented the case for Coherentism (i.e. Knowledge as justification), I will provide practical examples to show how one can have knowledge of things, including God. (1) For a long time people thought the world was flat. In fact they knew the world was flat. Experience told them so. But then their knowledge changed. It was not that their initial knowledge was wrong, since reasoning from experience told them as much. Simply, their justification changed and therefore their knowledge changed. (2) The Greeks knew nature by indentifying her with gods. They had no other way of knowing nature. Did they lack knowledge of nature? No, it was simply justified by different means. Science came along and justified nature in a new way and we have adopted that view. Therefore, one may come to know God depending on whether one is justified in believing Her. To be justified, the belief system one adopts (e.g. Christian, Islam, etc.) must be intrinsically coherent with itself. Now, how those beliefs come about in the first place is irrelevant because we don't have access to absolute truth - as history has shown us, experience can be deviant and reason mischevious, making us believe that the world is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.