I stuck to one point, which is what I though the point of the question was - if a god did exist, then mutually exclusive factual beliefs about that god could not be equally true (or valid - I think both apply). I was careful to say "facts" about the god to limit the scope of my discussion.
right. that's kin to how you spoke of 'truth' in what I quoted. however, 'facts about god' is itself not the most clear term. One [this being a philosophical issue] would expect that this does not mean mere material objectivities, but includes what we might call philosophical facts.--The kinds of facts which one must consider in addressing the concern of a religion's 'validity' are not merely the brute facts of an extant creator and an extant people'd world it created. The facts of God's personality could be such that a wide array of lifestyles and forms of worship (multiple daily prayers, communion, oxen sacrifices, fasting, self-flagellation, etc.) would be perfectly acceptable, much the way that for a government anything not 'illegal' is acceptable--there is no 'one path', but a wide range of freedom within the scope of 'the law-fearing life'.--A theological equivalent is easily conceivable; in other words, his analogy for why if any religions should be followed it will be only one of them*, is mistaken. Perhaps that analogy would be useful to the emailer (as the Christian has 'God-fearing' (i.e., 'enjoying one's life and free-will within the bounds of respectful obedience of one's accepted law-giver') as a key concept in their doctrine).
*as an aside, this is what I suspect for his concern, more so than mistakenly coming to think there is 'definitely a true religion out there' rather than 'one -or none-' as you pointed out. I'd suggest this since the idea of belonging to the sole true religion [in this world of competing religion and evangelistic hopes] is more often the concern than whether or not religion itself is right, given that god-belief is so thoroughly accepted that the question for them is not so much 'god or not?' but rather 'what way of life pleases god?'.
I just assumed for the sake of argument that the god was part of nature in some way without getting into the question of supernaturalism.
it's is not important to the emailer's concern, but I'll note nonetheless that this very notion, however, is in direct conflict with the 'transcendent God' concept of the monotheism which accounts for the overwhelming majority of god-believers in our world.--If you were to dispute that, and speculate that a non-supernaturalistic god concept was to be discussed, I would argue you're no longer talking about something warranting the title 'religion', and I'd suspect it to no longer count as what you called a 'matter of faith', and instead would be subject to expectations of evidence as surely as big bang cosmology is. In such a case, it would there be true what concerning monotheism is actually merely a philosophically naive assumption, Dawkins claim that 'a universe with a God would be radically different to a universe without one'.
