It was quite obvious this guy was into religion. I only discussed a religious topic once on
Eversince the enlightment, philosophy has had an antropocentric view of God and favours the agnostic standpoint. The only way you can squeeze some glimpse of God into purely rational thinking is by pointing out the direct, personal religious/spiritual experiences people sometimes have. These however are neither sensorial nor intellectual and therefore are outside of the scope of philosophy. If you want to take this road you have to cooperate with the human sciences to prove the ultimate reality of these experiences.
This road however isn't very promising either, because you start out on the pretext that these experiences are not sensorial, and you run into the philosophical paradox called the "Cartesian theatre" as soon as you propose spiritual experiences are sensorial: if the metaphysical causes sensorial experiences, the metaphysical must have physical properties, there must be a physical connection or link to the metaphysical. Such a connection has ofcouse never been found, finding one would mean finding a source of magic.
I think it's sad taking this agnostic standpoint makes one a religious person's foe, especially because I'm not at all adversive towards religion and spirituality. I only think our beliefs should hold up to our intellectual standards. As such, I must accept one neither can prove nor disprove God's existence philosophically or scientifically. If God exists, He must operate in other realms, beyond the touchable and thinkable. In other words I can accept existentialism, but I can certainly not accept fundamentalism and its ugly child creationism.
What amazes me here, is how this particular guy keeps up his balancing act. He's obviously very intelligent but at the same time has this very short temper. Hey, wise man, if you read this: I bet you're running gematria software on your box, perhaps even stuff you've written yourself. Maybe it was a bit premature putting me on your shitlist?