> But when you get right down to it, whether you're debating the existence of a war or the winning of a lottery ticket, it doesn't hold up. It either happened or it didn't. It exists or it doesn't. It does not make logical sense or practical sense to debate *why* things are the way they are when the question of *what* things are is still up in the air.
>

Here's the point on which so much of this issue turns, and as Sam indicates, the discussion isn't really productive or valuable (except as an intellectual exercise), until the participants agree to speak on the same level and address the same question. The first level and the foremost question ought to be "what" rather than "why".

I didn't really need to say this, of course, since I'm not really adding anything to Sam's remarks, but this one paragraph in particular so well summarizes much of what is at the core of the debate, that I wanted to say "ditto for me".

Iss "my juices is a-flowing now" achar