Understood; however, what you are calling unknowable could be a denial of the veracity of the source of knowledge leading to our understanding of the intelligence which created us (namely, the Bible). I know there are many who question the nature of the Bible and say that we don't have the original manuscripts, etc..., but to say that means you are willing to discuss that it has meaning, else, why would one talk about whether we have the original manuscripts...one should, otherwise, argue for its inapplicability to life at all and as a work of pure fiction. Most I have talked to about whether the Bible is the Word of God have not studied just as firmly the arguments for its veracity as a nonfiction work by God Himself, written by man only has HIs instrument of script not as author.

If you say that the only way we learn anything is by empiricism, and that faith is not a means of learning, then we would need to throw out most primary education. We learn most of our initial knowledge through trusting what we are told....only later in life do we apply some level of empiricism to our experience, but it always goes back to the absolutes we trust will be there so that we can think, conclude, and invent.

I would argue that one looking at a tree, without the brainwashing of evolutionary theory via initial education via middle/high school biology, would most likely see a design and a system of life that exhibits a higher intelligence....no man ever created a tree. The evolutionist would say this tree is a result of many chance changes/mutations over time resulted in that particular type of life form with some ancestry which would have its origin at some ancient point; thus, that tree is just a collection of chemicals which, by chance, resulted in what we have named a tree and may not be a tree tomorrow, figuratively, because evolution cannot limit itself without admitting something exerts a force outside of evolution to limit it. The question is where did that original information and those elements come from to form such a life form?

We have to deal with origins, else, we have no basis for discussing much else. Rejection of the discussion of origins really leads to rejection of the discussion of anything following since the source of origins underlies our entire philosophy of life and thinking.

Please consider this.