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: 
Whether or not God exists is an objective question with an objective answer, however the argument beginning

> 
> Is it true that "X" exists in reality only when we are aware of having experienced it, or are aware of our potential of experiencing it
> 
> 
> 

is starting with a baseless assumption. It's kind of like assuming the strongest form of the anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principal is provable from base logic; however not so the strong. But this is rather like the strongest form "The solution set of the laws of physics is mathematically constrained so that all solutions have us within them."

Or another way, you exclude all things from ever existing that cannot be observed. The mathematics of the laws of physics does not do so. On what evidence do you make this assumption?

Or again, the top quark was always a solution to the laws of physics, but no known process makes it, and it was not observed until humans went out of their way to cause it to be made. You would exclude it being made in astronomical events because we cannot possibly observe the difference between it being created or not being created.

Or again, in the hyperinflation scenario, you would exclude from existence all distant galaxies as soon as they exited our light cone without cause or reason.

But faith is more logical than some would guess. For if you took the weight of the evidence for God existing, and the weight of evidence against as computed by the counterfactuals, you would find that believing either side requires a great deal of faith. On one side you have a thing that will not be easily detected and on the other side a ridiculously long set of die rolls to pass. Even if you did assume the strongest anthropic principle it is no wedge to decide between two solutions.
> 
> 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.