Wow! That was a long discussion back and forth. I feel that most of these dialogs where an Atheist logically refutes point by point the assertions of an intelligent and competent theist, almost always devolve into severe mischaracterizations of what the atheist is actually saying, but rather what the theist would like to think they are saying as a means of bolstering their arguments. This reminds me a lot of the debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan, in which it broached many heady subjects, but seemed to always end in Andrew Sullivan not addressing Sam's points and Sam constantly replying back to counter the mischaracterizations and lack of address ad nauseam. sam harris/andrew sullivan debate

That being said, valiant effort and keep up the good work!