But can you call crab a fish?
Let us use a separate hypothetical example to illustrate my otherwise meaningless response above.
If I propose the existence of metaphysical hauntings or interactions through the casual (or sudden) closing of a door, do I maintain the external potential of outside influence? Pressure differentials, for example. If I'm searching for a metaphysical example, I'll find one, and vice versa.
I notice earlier you made a point about science justifying certain metaphysical occurrences, such as the resurrection of Jesus. However, such postulations are erroneous in assuming that these things have happened.
That is not to say they didn't, but if you've ever played a round of Telephone you can very rapidly see the mutation, intentional or otherwise, of a message.
My greatest problem with most arguments for any creed is the frequent reliance on these postulations. My girlfriend is Catholic and has a similar, "These things cannot be known" perspective, which I profoundly disagree with.
Mostly because the logical proof of non-existence in an infinite universe is impossible sans omniscience. Patterns and systems can be derived through mathematics, but formulaicly I cannot disprove a theoretical unicorn on a theoretical planet. Thus, the fact that something considered metaphysical cannot be known is a quandary; if no effort is applied, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Physics come down to observable phenomenon; a metaphysical occurrence that is observable and repeatable loses its status as metaphysical, so metaphysics exist purely within the hypothetical sans evidence, and are no longer metaphysics once observed because clearly it is possible.
E.g., if I witnessed the saltpillarification of someone a la Old Testament, I would immediately relegate such from metaphysics to physics. However, the burden of proof lies on the individual asserting it is possible be able to saltpillarify an individual.
I'm running stream of consciousness; I apologize if it seems there is any disjoint in the thought process.