Now you're being silly! Proving a negative? Where are we, High School?
I didn't ask you to prove a negative. You are making a positive claim that nothing exists apart from what can be verified by scientific means. It seems to me that you need to offer evidence for that claim. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, especially when the thing being considered is, by definition, outside the scope of physical evidence.
Now you're becoming hysterical. (At least I had to laugh.)
I'm hardly hysterical. Though it is certainly easier for you to call me names than to admit that your presuppositions are no less faith-based than my own.
Set some standards for yourself, for crying out loud! How about this for starters: "I won't argue the existence of things which have no existence."
How about this standard for you: "I won't claim non-existence for things for which I have no scientific evidence, especially if those things are, by definition, beyond the scope of science." There was a time when protons were beyond the scope of science, and the human mind pretty much still is. That doesn't mean those things don't exist.
Are you saying it is unreasonable to think original autograph manuscripts of any Apostolic writings which a "heretic" was using to support non-Trinitarian teachings WOULD ACTUALLY SURVIVE??
So you can envision such a scenario for "heretical" writings being destroyed, but completely dismiss it for the canonical writings? Perhaps the autographs of the heretical writings didn't survive because they were not seen as valuable by those who received them? Interestingly, the writings of Arius are still extant, despite their "heretical" nature.
Beside that, your scenario smacks more of Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code than it does of actual history. The council of Nicea had absolutely nothing to do with the organizing of the Biblical canon - that was established prior to the time of Constantine. It also did not affirm the Trinity, only the deity and eternality of Christ, which (contrary to Dan Brown) was overwhelmingly affirmed by vote of the bishops present.
And, even if Constantine did destroy "heretical" writings (which I suppose is proven by the fact that we don't have them ), it would not in any way affect our discussion of why we don't have the NT autographs; that was centuries prior, and it seems highly likely that they had disappeared well before Constantine's time. Maybe I'm thick, but I don't see what point you are trying to make with this scenario.