That depends. For Theravadins phenomena have ultimate existence, while the self doesn't, to put it simply.
In the context of Mahayana, no.
I mean, you may avoid using the words, but that doesn't matter.
Saying that something exists or not is only valid in the context of loka samvriti satya, provisional or conventional truth.
A chair exists. Sit on one and you can confirm this easily.
A flying blue hippopotamus doesn't not. Hippopotamus are neither blue, nor can they fly. So the later is untrue (asatya).
But these conventional truths obscure a more profound truth, the ultimate.
Then things get more complex when it comes to the exact interpretation of paramartha satya, ultimate or absolute truth. There are variations among schools. Some dispense the two truths entirely. Whatever the case, it's never conceptual. Intellectually you may try to gain some understanding, mostly by knowing what it isn't, but it is always conceptually absurd. So there's no surprise about the multiple intellectual interpretations about it, right?
Until we get proper training and spend thousands of hours practicing, all this won't be more than a neat philosophy or a matter of blind faith. It doesn't do us much good.