(IFF) god created everything and sees everything and knows everything (THEN) that still doesn't help us humans see stuff and know stuff.
In order for a human to call something "true", that phenomenon (or idea) must be (EITHER) empirically verifiable (OR) logically necessary.
Any "thing" that is NOT empirically verifiable and also NOT logically necessary CANNOT be categorized as "true" or "extant".
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Check this out, it was made by a Christian philosopher,
But that doesn't make something not real, just because we don't know it. So, it is not relevant. Eventually, we can know something. When we see something, we are not making the thing exist as soon as we see it.
Try to consider that you might be making the thing exists as soon as you see it.
Try thinking about it like this,
I am not talking about that. I am not talking about what I know but what exists. You may not know wind exist but that does not mean wind does not knock you over. You might know about the wind when it knocks you over but not before. But the wind was still there before you knew about it. So, the wind existed before you knew it existed.
The important bit here is being able to very clearly distinguish between "EXISTS" and "DOES NOT EXIST" (does not qualify as extant).
(IFF) you have no empirical evidence (and cannot demonstrate some logical necessity) of "spiritual-wind" (THEN) you cannot categorize "spiritual-wind" in the "EXISTS" category.
Certainly there might be (currently undiscovered) things that will be said to "EXIST" in the future, and we might even RETROACTIVELY say they "EXISTED" "before" they were "discovered", but up-to-and-until that day when they are empirically verifiable (and or demonstrated to be logically necessary) we cannot say "spiritual-wind" "EXISTS".
Radio waves are a good example of this.
Are you talking about scientifically trying to prove that something is tangible? Sure, within the realm of scientific experiments, as in observational science, of course you are going to go through a process in an attempt to verify, to confirm the evidence regarding alleged claim of the reality of something. I understand you might be alluding to the limitation of the religion of historical science, as seen in the myth of evolution for example in superimposing assumptions into the past which violates the process of observational science which is done in live time, step by step. So, I agree that people should try harder not to conflate observational science with historical science.
Yes. Very good. Yes.
Let's go with "evolution".
Well, a long time ago, it was simply a hypothesis.
Then, as people discovered more evidence and found the hypothesis useful for making predictions, it was upgraded to a theory (a useful hypothesis).
And now that we've been able to observe and document the process of "speciation" it's now an empirically verifiable fact.
Skip to 55 seconds,
Do you know understand carbon dating?