Nathan Ormond and I disagree about philosophy—and more precisely the existence of God—about as much as any two people can. I think he is wrong across the board when it comes to how to do philosophy and has the pitiably confused view that philosophy teaches us nothing of note. He, in contrast, thinks that all my arguments for God are demonstrably flawed and rest on an errant metaphilosophy, amounting to little more than fancy word-games. Despite our disagreements, we recently found some common ground in our shared opposition to buying animal products; and, as I’ll explain in this article, we may have even more common ground.