These are questions I would work up to or start with depending on who I was talking to. Something for Catholics, Protestants, unconventional theists, and their intersections:
“What do you find to be the strongest argument against metaphysical reasoning, especially of the sort that suggests the concept of God as a compelling foundation for metaphysics?”
“Does your philosophical conception of God intersect with decisions in your day-to-day life, or during critical periods in your life? If so, how so?”
“Most analytics are two-boxers on Newcomb’s problem, but William Lane Craig makes a case for one-boxing; what do you think of his arguments? What do you think of his approach to the problem of Divine Foreknowledge, e.g. as compared to Thomists and Molinists?”
“Many mathematicians that thought about infinity and the divine ended up with baffled and baffling impressions; e.g., Cantor, Goedel. Do you see this in philosophy? Do you have any thoughts on what it implies about the concept of God and how you should go about reasoning about God?”
“Do you ever try to find room for theology in your phenomenology? If so what does that look like? Can God be examined phenomenologically? If so, how?”
“Would the idea of God be a necessary or at least highly compelling idea to hold just because of its theurgic effect, so to speak, on society and on individual philosophers? E.g., as a bastion against relative anomie and nihilism. If so, is that evidence for the justification of its philosophical underpinnings, and if so, what is the mechanism of justification? [Maybe make a reference to Plantinga’s arguments against naturalism.]”
The point is setting up a conversation where you both feel like you’re learning or sharing important but nuanced ideas.
These are questions I would work up to or start with depending on who I was talking to. Something for Catholics, Protestants, unconventional theists, and their intersections:
“What do you find to be the strongest argument against metaphysical reasoning, especially of the sort that suggests the concept of God as a compelling foundation for metaphysics?”
“Does your philosophical conception of God intersect with decisions in your day-to-day life, or during critical periods in your life? If so, how so?”
“Most analytics are two-boxers on Newcomb’s problem, but William Lane Craig makes a case for one-boxing; what do you think of his arguments? What do you think of his approach to the problem of Divine Foreknowledge, e.g. as compared to Thomists and Molinists?”
“Many mathematicians that thought about infinity and the divine ended up with baffled and baffling impressions; e.g., Cantor, Goedel. Do you see this in philosophy? Do you have any thoughts on what it implies about the concept of God and how you should go about reasoning about God?”
“Do you ever try to find room for theology in your phenomenology? If so what does that look like? Can God be examined phenomenologically? If so, how?”
“Would the idea of God be a necessary or at least highly compelling idea to hold just because of its theurgic effect, so to speak, on society and on individual philosophers? E.g., as a bastion against relative anomie and nihilism. If so, is that evidence for the justification of its philosophical underpinnings, and if so, what is the mechanism of justification? [Maybe make a reference to Plantinga’s arguments against naturalism.]”
The point is setting up a conversation where you both feel like you’re learning or sharing important but nuanced ideas.