Not sure, that means you are pre-supposing that it can’t be proven. I suppose you could say we can’t prove it yet....

@Canndue When it comes to beliefs, they can't be proven, even if they could it wouldn't be worth bothering.

@barjoe curious, why do you think beliefs cannot be proven? Seems like James Randi made a career out of doing just that. Now there are beliefs we can’t prove or disprove now, I certainly agree , but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen in the future.

@Canndue James Randi debunked charlatans. I can't prove that God doesn't exist, even though I know in my heart that's true. The onus is on theists to prove God does exist. They can't EVER do that.

@barjoe Randi disproved the beliefs people had in the charlatans. If they were able to prove gods existence, I suspect we would all change our positions.

@Canndue The stupid people who believe in psychics and telekinesis continued to believe it, even after James Randi debunked that. Religion is just as much bullshit. They CAN'T prove it. Stop okay. If you believe that's fine. I'm a Gnostic Atheist Apatheist. NOTHING any stupid theist can say will EVER make me believe in God, life after death. Any of that bullshit!

Does knowing even a single thing about something mean you know it? Interesting question.

@JeffMurray No but it does mean that it is not unknowable.

@Fernapple Well, if the thing that you know doesn't constitute the knowing, why wouldn't it be possible for the thing(s) that you don't know that do constitute the knowing be unknowable?

@JeffMurray Because knowning a thing and knowing everything about a thing are not the same. "I think therefore I am. " Means I know me, but I certainly do not know everthing about me.

@Fernapple I don't think my point is coming across.
There is a paradox in your original statement. If you know something is unknowable, then you know something about it. If you know something about it, then it's not unknowable. Except the thing you supposed you knew was that it was unknowable, but since you are saying that was wrong then you didn't actually know it, and it's possible it is unknowable, but then...

This is why I asked what constitutes 'knowledge of' something. Does knowing even a single thing about something constitute knowledge of it? Your answer started with, "No, but" which I didn't really notice at first and do not understand. It brings us back to the paradox again.

"I think therefore I am" I thought supposedly addresses existence, not knowledge. I wondering, knowing what we know now, if it even addresses that.

@JeffMurray Good point. I love a good paradox. My point is. How can something be unknowable, because if you know it is unknowable, then you know something about it.

And how can you say something is unknowable without, you know something about it.

Another one I love is. I have a black box, you can not know without taking the lid of the locked box, what the contents are. But you can say a lot about the comntents of a black box, even without knowing what they are, because if the box measures a foot square and is three pounds, then you can say that the contents are less than a foot square, and less than three pounds. You can also say things like it does not make any sound. This can be a useful way of thinking about the god thingy when debating with theists, who say things like. "Prove god does not exist." I can not prove god does not exist, but I can prove your god does not exist, if it is not self consistent, for example.

@Fernapple I was thinking about 'knowing the temperature outside'. You can know things about the temperature, but that doesn't mean you know the temperature. I think about the unknowable kinda the same way. Knowing it is unknowable is not the essence of 'knowing it', thus, it doesn't invalidate the unknowableness of it.

@JeffMurray Yes I think that is right.