Question: My first thought is simply 'time frame', but then Anthropology isn't exactly bound to the past...

A second look makes me wonder if "experimental philosophy" is not simply some area of overlap between Psychology, Sociology and of course Anthropology. An aside question that came up in this regard is: Can the same research material, e.g. *questionnaires*, be used by different disciplines?

Now I don't want to come across as critical of the existence of "experimental philosophy", after all it may turn out future generations will much benefit from the Democratic Depository of Philosophical Intuitions. 

**But it seem there is a demarcation problem here I'm unable to find any sources to resolve?**

See also this apology:
<https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/experimental_ph.html>

Answer: 
> 
> In this regard, if no one has experienced "God", it means "God" doesn't and cannot exist
> 
> 
> 

Not so long ago, no one has experienced diving the Mariana Trench; then someone did do so. Did the Trench not exist before?

Imagine there were no humans (nothing intelligent on earth). Would that mean that the planet could not exists?

100 years ago nobody could even have *imagined* our technology (which is true if you read their SciFi books - those are sounding really old-fashioned today; even their most progressive minds could not imagine our everyday stuff). Would that mean that it doesn't (well, not back then) and *cannot* exist?

If we kill all humans, does the universe go "poof" because nobody can witness it anymore?

> 
> are aware of our potential of experiencing it through our five sense organs, namely - eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin
> 
> 
> 

I assure you there are people out there who are indeed "aware of our potential of experiencing God through our five senses" - people even wrote a book about it. Literally.

This does not make God exist though, either.

> 
> How can this fact be wrong?
> 
> 
> 

Well. You have to prove facts. You cannot just not be able to imagine a way in which it could be false, and then posit that it must therefore be true.
> 
> is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are **aware** of having
>  experienced it,
> 
> 
> 

Your definition does not state that you must be aware of having experienced it. Its plausible that there are many things you have experienced that you are unaware of. Some of those things could be objective.

Airplanes objectively have an effect on ants. It's not clear whether ants comprehend this effect for what it is. 

> 
> In this regard, **if** no one has experienced "God", it means "God"
>  doesn't and cannot exist;
> 
> 
> 

Let's assume this statement is true. Since you can't know who has or has not experienced God, you can't determine whether God does or does not exist from it.

That said, I reject that this statement shows that God is not objective, according to your definition. "Perceptible by all" does not imply that something has been perceived by all or even by any. Only that it is capable of being perceived. Its unclear whether or not God can be perceived. 

> 
> because, if "God" could have existed in reality, it would have already
>  existed outside of our thoughts.
> 
> 
> 

This statement sounds like a tautology. Things that exist do exist outside of our own thoughts. 

> 
> Thus, "God" is merely an idea.
> 
> 
> 

Your arguments haven't shown that this statement is true.

> 
> Hence, this has to be the objective truth as everyone knows that they
>  experience reality in the same way (i.e. through 5 sense organs).
> 
> 
> 

Lets assume everyone experiences reality the same way. There's still no way to rule out whether experiencing God is possible or not. 

That said, I reject the idea that everyone experiences reality the same way. It's possible that they do, but there's no way to actually know. 

> 
> How can this fact be wrong?
> 
> 
> 

If we accept your definition of objective, then you must prove that God cannot be perceived. Otherwise, in the absence of other information, its unclear whether God is Objective or not.