> This is approximately the least productive manner to debate this subject.

Harsh words! I'm sure there are far less productive approaches (like blind dogma) - we shall see...

> IMHO, philosophical debates like this are almost always flawed and unproductive on both sides.

Which takes us back to your theory that all theories are wrong, which I was putting a personal slant on.

> I know philosophical "proofs" for and against the existence of God, and I don't think any of them are the least bit conclusive.

I suggest (almost) that God exists for those who choose to acknowledge it as so, though I do not and see it as a result of intelligence (rather than the creator of it). Which does not seek to be the least bit conclusive.

> If you're going to talk about the existence of God, you're much better off speaking in terms of hard core facts.

Is the existence of God a matter for hard core facts? Surely 'the unknowable' denies such explication?

>Archeology. Science. History...

Are all tainted by their authors, are all constructs of our desire to find patterns, correspondences and systems of cause and effect.

>...The content of the Bible. Such conversations usually more meaningful.

And there are other religions with their own works of literature.

> I'll gladly engage in such a conversation, but at a future date...that will hopefully be in the near future. More later.

The more the merrier.

en'devil's advocate'ile