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.
"Isn't the knowledge of the non-existence of “God” objective?"

If taking the definition of "Objective" meaning: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Then one could safely say yes, this is true. Faith is a personal feeling after all.

---

However; I have provided this definition, which differs from the one you provide in the body of your question. Since this is a philosophy site you should be aware of how important it is to align your ontology, that being the entities you suppose to exist and their definitions. If you choose to define things differently from what would commonly be defined (such as your definition as to what objective means) you can introduce inconsistencies. 

For instance you go on to link objective with concrete senses. Which has spawned argument and further you have left room in the interpretation of 'existence' which from the following comment that you left:

> 
> Suppose you know "something" doesn't exist. It means it doesn't exist
>  for you at present (It doesn't exist now). Suppose in the future, it
>  exists. Then you would say at that time that "it exists now". I was
>  referring to the present tense in the history rather than the past
>  tense in the present. Sort of trying to live in the present - of
>  history. Because, at that time you would say, "Radio waves don't
>  exist". But today, we can say "Radio waves exist
> 
> 
> 

From here we see that existence is is taking on the meaning of relative truth or individual reality. Individual reality isn't very mixable with the idea of objectivity especially as you define it being outside the mind... 

I want to point that I don't think many people would disagree with my initial answer (as I defined ) but as you have redefined *objective* the answer becomes pretty intractable. 

Finally it should be noted that the answer I provided is yes by definition and therefore it is a loaded question and provides no insight into reality (at least that I can see).