Yes of course. Yes of COURSE. Relating to a matter of fact. You're talking about perceiving spiritual realities. I'm asking a different question: do you believe those spiritual realities exist, in actuality, as a matter of fact; as 'real' as existence of the laws of nature, or 2+2=4, or the Law of Causality. I'd be careful with following down that line of logic, for it could lead you to say that there is no actual real difference between Wind and God.
It might have led you to say it, but I am in no danger of making that kind of categorical error. As I have said, wind and Spirit are one and the same word in Greek, but two distinct definitions are intended depending on the context in which the word is used. Are you just curious as to my personal belief on the issue, or are you doing a Matt.22:35? How does one measure 'actual existence'? Usually by touch, taste, smell, sound and sight, for anything physically discernible by human senses or via specialized equipment, extending the range of human senses. (Such as the infra red, ultra violet, x-ray, sub and hyper sound frequencies etc.) Q. Is the 'real presence of Christ' discernible by any of the physical means I have mentioned? A. No. 'Real' as the laws of nature: All measurable, (as far as we know), by one physical means or another. 'Real' as 2+2=4: Provable by human logic and intuition, (no spirituality required or involved). 'Real' as The Law of Causality: Arrived at using human logic and human reason, (no spirituality required or involved). So what do you think Paul means when he says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."? Clearly there are things pertaining to The Spirit which are not discernible by the physical means I have enumerated. One of those things is 'The Real Presence of Christ' in the Eucharist, and in the sacraments of bread and wine. The sacraments are a concession to us physical creatures, by a God who is Spirit, so that by our senses of touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing of the 'comfortable words', we may assimilate via the outward and physical sign of the sacraments, the inward and spiritual grace of the concrete reality of our salvation in Jesus Christ Our Lord. That concrete salvation is discernible only by means of The Spirit, and by no other means whatsoever.
Okay then maybe I should expand my question. Forget about Christ's presence in the sacrament, do you believe that anything in the category of spiritual, can be considered to be real? For instance: - God? - The Holy Spirit? - Did Jesus actually ascend into Heaven? - Are the saints and the elect actually privy, right now, to the beatific vision? -Was Jesus of Nazareth, the person, actually conceived by God, in Mary, an infant clump of cells without a physical father?
Perhaps you could define what you mean by 'real': 'Real' would be considered by me to be: Actually existing; not counterfeit; authentic; true; genuine. When applied to God, this definition of real becomes ineffective in establishing whether God actually exists. Since no one has seen God, Jn.1:18, it is impossible for humankind to determine if God is 'counterfeit', 'authentic', 'true' or 'genuine'. These attributes can only be assumed by faith, and primarily through believing the report of those human beings who met Jesus of Nazareth and conversed with him or those who have been regenerated by The Holy Spirit themselves. Plus the individual experience of regeneration, and renewal of life through Baptism in The Holy Spirit available to believers today just as on the Day of Pentecost. Assurance of Salvation results from faith in the existence of God, and the conviction that he rewards those who seek him. Heb.11:6. There is no concrete proof for the existence of God. God can only be experienced, never categorised or defined by human ingenuity. When applied to The Holy Spirit, the same limitations also apply. When applied to the ascension, much the same criteria are applicable, plus considerable unresolvable speculation regarding the exact nature of the actual method of his departure. The only evidence we have are the scripture narratives, plus the irrefutable fact that Jesus Christ is no longer physically on earth. That he is ascended into heaven is a statement of 'faith' not a provable 'scientific fact'. Ps.25:14, indicates that God only shares his secrets with them that respect Him. In effect, only with those who are fertile soil, Matt.13:23, Gen.2:7. The word rendered 'dust', actually means 'soil'. So in answer to this question I would answer. "Yes". I can't answer for anyone else but myself though, but I can well believe their testimonies, if they are regenerate, based upon my own experience. I don't know, and neither do you. Neither of us were there at the time. Knowing and believing are two different things though. I have no reason to believe a virgin birth impossible. It is not unknown in nature, only scientifically undocumented and unverified in human beings. Not actually knowing with certainty, I reserve the right to be, as yet, undecided about it, as with everything else I cannot be certain about. Uncertainty is not a sin, feigned faith and false certainty are. On the subject of the mechanics of the incarnation though, I think if it were ever possible to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was normally conceived, it would not matter in the least and would prove nothing. It would certainly not negate my personal experience of an encounter with God, resulting in regeneration and renewed life in the power of The Holy Spirit. I would be inclined to take that personal experience as sufficient confirmation of the events as recorded in the scripture, until irrefutable evidence to the contrary is forthcoming.