daysleeper

I'm going out on a limb here; bear with me. Both parties can be proven and disproven, and I'll try to explain. Within existence (scientifically ranging on the entire scale of an absence or presence of space, or supernaturally which cannot exactly be explained in scientific terms) the actuality of reality can be found. In borrowing the god/no god debate, His existence technically CAN be disproven by proving that within all existence (as I've roughly defined), He's simply...not there. And likewise, it can be proven that within all existence He is.

Now, in order to actually prove this, you would need the omnipotence to be everywhere at once at the same time to encompass all existence and prove or disprove either theory. This is impossible on the human scale, so "logically" the advantage wouldn't ever "belong" to either party. It would simply shift back and forth, much like a score board where the evidence of truth stacks and falls on each side either benefiting one argument for a time or canceling unusable arguments in another.

Logic is a shift in what is available as evidence at a certain time to better define what is apparent within that time. Logically, logic is illogical for matters of a higher form than what is able to be proven by man. For instance: You (generically speaking) spit into a gust of wind directed towards you. The force of the wind being stronger than the makeup of the saliva causes it to reverse and go back from whence it came. Logic, if one chooses to apply it to the current situation, proves the obvious result because it is in the realm of what we are able to interpret.

Therefore:

Your previous statements:
A) There exists no evidence for god, therefore it is impossible to argue for or against his existence.
- This, to me, is the most logical statement to be made.

Response:It is NOT impossible, we simply do not know all of the existing variables to conduct a complete argument satisfactory for every party (refer back to my second paragraph.)
-

B) If there were evidence for god, then faith would no longer be necessary. Therefore, god must exist without evidence.
- This is what I call an unlosable argument. A notion is introduced that, by definition, cannot be disputed. This does not prove a point at all, but makes it impossible to oppose.
- An unlosable argument is not a won argument, simply because the object of proof can be replaced by a wildcard.

Response: This argument is partially true, considering logically that if evidence for God existed then each being within the entire universe would need access to that evidence in order for faith to be unnecessary. In the game of 'human intelligence,' you may choose to use a wildcard.
-

C) The burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim.
- The real question is who is making the positive claim. Is it the party claiming the existence of something that cannot be proved? Is it the party claiming the non-existence of something that cannot be proved?

Response: I'd first like to point out the oddity and illogicality of both parties proving or disproving what "cannot be proved," as yet again you may refer to my second paragraph.)
-

D) You cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist.
- This is the most confounding point I can make. It wraps back into the unlosable argument point.

Reponse: Three times' the charm! Second paragraph.
-

E) The logical advantage belongs to the party that holds the argument that CAN be disproved, but isn't.
- This is my opinion, but I would like someone to disagree with it.

Response: I conclude that you have an incomplete or inadequate (or illogical) argument, considering the potential truth of (E) is trumped by the human inability to "logically" explain the existence of God.

Making debate impossible? Maybe. Learning? Absolutely not. You never cease to have the ability to learn. It all depends on what it is you want to discover.

I hope this helps