God's existence--A different approach

You seem to be implying that physical evidence is requisite to all proofs, which I suppose to be of the same manner we hear from Sherlock Holmes or science.

Not exactly, I was very careful in the wording of that line (though happy to see that it meant enough to be used as a starter for another topic). Using your rain metaphor, true that while being on the 31st floor would keep you from seeing the ground and knowing it was wet, there is still enough pre-requisite proof (physical) that would allow someone to make a rational, informed decision that the ground is indeed wet because of the knowledge that water does make things that way. HOWEVER, in line with my statement of not being able to preove OR disprove, even with a truckload of previous experience, it is possible the ground is indeed not wet because something could be covering it, rain does fall that far (if you lived in arizona you would know exactly what that is like), etc.

In the same manner, we might not have direct evidence to God's existence, but is it entirely impossible--if he exists--to make the inference using what we do know to be true to derive his necessary existence?

Now to expand on this point, with the ground being wet, the inference is made because there has been on the part of whoever, a number of direct correlations to the rains effect, i.e. they have been on the ground floor when it is raining and have seen the ground get wet from rain. So, the difference here is, noone has directly seen God physically (in a manner that can be proven to others on a large scale) in front of them, performing anything, so the reference to his existence therefore would still be in question.