One of the problems with this argument is that both sides have different
a priori position or belief.
The theist enters the argument with the belief that there is a god. Absent of any proof to the contrary; the
a priori position is affirmed - if you can't prove that god does not exist, then god must exist.
The atheist enters the argument with the belief that there is no god. Absent of any proof to the contrary; the
a priori position is affirmed - if you can't prove that god exists, then god must not exist.
Both sides can claim "victory" because the other side can't disprove the opposing
a priori position or hypothesis.
However, neither side can prove that their
a priori position is valid.
What both sides are missing is that in order to logically prove something, not only do you have to prove "your" hypothesis as being true, you have to prove that a mutually exclusive hypothesis is false.
Which means that first of all, it must be proven that god can not "exist" and "not exist" at the same time. That is an assumption that has not been demonstrated.
What if theists and atheists are both right?
But really, logic does not enter into the argument... that's why it is called "faith".
