text: if i can't see it, then it must not exist...child thinking? i hear this argument from athesists, but can you think of other things that exist, that you cannot reach out and touch something tangible, like hatred, prejudice, etc.  dogs hear what we can't, bats see what we can't, and bee's see a flower much differently than you and i...  if i have no valid "proof" of something, and my senses cannot detect it, is this by default a valid argument that it must not exist? what happens then, if the senses which we 'scientifically' use in this 'proof test' are in turn illusions of our mind and don't really exist?  what is touch, sight, sound, taste and smell other than signals from our 'sense organs' going to the nerves and ultimately the brain - which is something man is yet to fully decipher?  why then rely on these 'senses' as instruments to prove that something metaphysical exists or not?