You just explained the definition of 'faith'. The word 'faith' exists because people understood that there are things we must accept without any thing tangible supporting it. Humans have always had the capacity to intuit the things we cannot observe, by the influence and effect they have on the things we can (i.e., "dark" matter and energy). Just because you cannot put 'potential' in a lab and measure it, isn't any reason to suppose it 'isn't there'. We accept things without evidence all the time, but some people's logic lead them to believe Divinity is an exception.
Now that secular progressivism has taken over our society, people of faith have been made to accept their beliefs on the material grounds of secularism, which is inherently contradictory to the concept of religious/spiritual faith. This has left people in a state of confusion, and distracted by trivial and unimportant matters, that turn our attention away from, essentially, what 'faith' means. This is how we get questions, like yours, that fundamentally fail to understand that faith is not subject to physical evidence.
It used to be that the faith discussion was taken with the understanding that God cannot be "proven" or "disproven", but progressivism has subverted that view, by inserting secular materialism as the default grounds by which the argument must be accepted. This is how people are led to believe that the "burden of proof" is on the claim, "God exists", but not on the claim that "God doesn't exist". Theists have been deceived into making their claims look more outlandish, by redoubling their efforts to assert their convictions on the grounds secularists have set up for them.
People are misled to believe that a God that, 'cannot be proven or disproven', can fit into "a box", made of their own ideas and preconceived notions. The human mind and intellect cannot know all there is to possibly know, nor comprehend or conceive of the 'Enormity of Divinity'; therefore 'God', cannot be a manmade concept. Any evidence "for" or "against" God's existence, can only result in 'counter-evidence'. A god subject to "proof and disproof" would imply a limitation.
An 'Unlimited God' cannot be confined to the boundaries of a 'this' and 'that', 'here' and 'there', 'now' and 'then'. That is why we have to take God to be a 'subjective awareness', we accept , or not, on 'faith' (unless you're agnostic, obviously). If there can be "evidence" of God's existence, it could only be "proven" or "disproven" by, subjectively, by 'identifying with', and 'walking in', one's own faith, as an expression of devotion. If one needs external confirmation before exploring one's faith, it will be inhibited by reluctance and timidity, which inherently come from 'self-doubt' and 'mistrust'.
Every scientific pursuit is accepted on the 'faith' that a hypothesis is deemed worthy of investigating further, before it can be tangibly demonstrated. Atheism isn't backed up by anything substantial, and only comes from the idea of 'theism', as a derivative. Atheist make the claim that 'their faith' is backed by the material sciences, which only examine the "superficial surface" of appearances, and do not negate the possibility of a 'Divine Being', undetectable by physical observation.
Scientific reasoning is one system out of innumerable systems, to see things with. Making a system as the "authority" of "what is, and isn't", is no different than using the Bible as the source of one's claims. We all hold our convictions out of the 'faith' that they are correct. While I do not agree with the reliance on one sole system, I do not agree that their limitations are grounds for total dismissal. Which ever "system(s)" we choose can only be chosen out of the 'belief' that they have any validity to them. We must act on 'faith' to find out (know), for certain.
Not only are humans the only species to be aware of our own mortality, we have the capacity to seek our the 'Source' of our existence. By default the theist believes a "Creator must exist", while the secularist believes "there isn't" or "lets wait and see". The theist response, naturally, is, "well, how did we get here?", and the secularist "shushes it away" in dismissal, or responds with, "we can't know that yet, and we're working on it", yet that is not 'faith' to the secularist, who just accept their beliefs as "true"?
The theist cannot helped but be baffled by this system of logic that is seeking a 'Source', while maintaining a "certainty" or "uncertainty" of it's "non-existence", that denies all other methods of investigation. What leads people of faith to believe that there is a 'Source' is, 'our existence', and our ability to seek it out. When you ask a secularist what is it that makes them believe there isn't a 'Source', there answer is usually, "well, we've never found one", which somehow supposes "there isn't", or "might not be".
By that logic, 'gold' never existed until someone "found it", even though gold predates the physical existence of humans.