My claim is that in order to maintain and defend Christianity the Christian must resort to offering possible scenarios at almost every turn. My claim is that the more they are forced to resort to these possible scenarios then the less likely their background knowledge is true which forms the backdrop to legitimately use these possible scenarios in the first place.
Of course this is false since the majority of arguments for Christianity are not based on possibility. However, Christians do make this move when atheists claim that there is a logical contradiction within Christianity, or that it is impossible that such and such Christian doctrine is true, or that this or that could not have happened, etc. It's really sad that Loftus is unable to draw the finer conceptual distinctions needed to be a top-notch atheologian.