Role-switch: Siquo goes into the offensive!
Logic dictates that unless something can be proved to exist, it does not.
No. No It Does Not. While you're at it, I'd like to hit your logic-professor in the head as well.
Proof works as follows, I'm going to presume that you at least know basic preposition logic notation, where A is proof of existence and B is the actual existence.
(A → B)
(If there is proof, then there is existence)
That is something TOTALLY different than
(~A → ~B)
(If there is no proof, then there is no existence)
You may Assume that rule, but logic certainly does not dictate that. If you assume it, then that is your choice alone and no, you may not hit other people over the head with made-up logical constructs.
The only thing you can infer from that is
(A → B) ↔ (~B → ~A)
Logic and Reason are intricately interrelated, Reason is most accurately defined as "a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event"
No, No It Is Not. "A reason" is, but "Reason" is the process or faculty that allows the generation of conclusions from assumptions or premises. Not that last one: Reason (and logic) gets you nowhere unless you assume something else first. Allow me to quote
wikipedia for you:
The precise way in which reason differs from emotion, faith, and tradition is controversial, because all three are considered to be both potentially rational, and in potential conflict with reason.
If you're trying to be the Defender of the Faith of Science, at least have the decency to learn what it is before spouting your nonsense.
NEXT!