I know the answer is "no" in general due to Gödel's Theory of Incompleteness, but I mean this question in a more real-world sense (i.e. scientific sense). In other words, I am talking about empirical rather than mathematical truths. Can there be truths no evidence of which exists? I will give an example to clarify -- let's say dinosaurs existed, but they left no fossils, or any other trace. If there was no way of proving that dinosaurs existed would it still be true that they did?

I know the answer is "no" in general due to Gödel's Theory of Incompleteness, but I mean this question in a more real-world sense (i.e. scientific sense). In other words, I am talking about empirical rather than mathematical truths. Can there be truths no evidence of which exists? I will give an example to clarify -- let's say dinosaurs existed, but it happened to be the case that no fossils of them formed. If dinosaurs existed, must it be the case that they would have left some trace of their existence, no matter how obscure?

I know the answer is "no" in general due to Gödel's Theory of Incompleteness but I mean this question in a more real-world sense (i.e. scientific sense), I just didn't have anywhere else to ask it. I will give an example to clarify -- let's say fossils didn't exist, but dinosaurs still existed. In this 'system', Would there still exist a way of proving that dinosaurs existed?

I know the answer is "no" in general due to Gödel's Theory of Incompleteness, but I mean this question in a more real-world sense (i.e. scientific sense). In other words, I am talking about empirical rather than mathematical truths. Can there be truths no evidence of which exists? I will give an example to clarify -- let's say dinosaurs existed, but they left no fossils, or any other trace. If there was no way of proving that dinosaurs existed would it still be true that they did?