> > But this is a poor stop-gap bound at some point to fail, by the chaotic nature of the 'processes' it is meant to explain.
>
> This is approximately the least productive manner to debate this subject. IMHO, philosophical debates like this are almost always flawed and unproductive on both sides. I know philosophical "proofs" for and against the existence of God, and I don't think any of them are 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. Archeology. Science. History. The content of the Bible. Such conversations usually more meaningful. I'll gladly engage in such a conversation, but at a future date...that will hopefully be in the near future. More later.

Ha-ha, it always seems as though Sam can crank out in condensed, easily-understood form a response which takes me a good half-hour to formulate. We're saying more or less the same thing, but hopefully folks will take the time to read my own post as well, seeing as how I spent so long on it and all... ;-)

Iss "blahblahblah machine" achar