So I got to thinking about an earlier comment I made. Let's say an atheist's argument against the existence of God is as such: God doesn't exist because we can't prove Him and God doesn't exist because we can prove Him. Therefore, there are only two conditions under which an atheist's claim that God doesn't exist can be true.
1.) We have proof that God doesn't exist or
2.) We don't have proof that God doesn't exist.
Conversely, a theist's argument for the existence of God would be: God exists because we can prove Him and God exists because we can't prove him. Therefore, the two conditions under which this would be true are if
1.) We have proof that God exists or
2.) We don't have proof that God exists.
Since #1 in both circumstances is an impossibility in the scientific sense, we'll throw them out. Therefore, we're left with two arguments whose conclusions rely on the fact that neither can be proven. So, knowing this, I'm kinda' wondering how one argument can be considered more 'logical' than the other.
Enlighten me, please.