Mephistopheles at Taylor Seminary

@RandalRauser

I define a good argument as a valid argument that could persuade a rational person. By that definition, there are good arguments for Christianity. And there are good arguments against Christianity.

Sounds like the opening gambit of a conversation with Mephistopheles. He doesn't begin by attacking Christianity. That would put Christians on the defensive. Instead, he begins by saying something nice about Christianity. A throwaway line that lulls them into lowering their guard. 

After the softening up exercise, he then relativizes his apparent concession by casually saying there are also good arguments against Christianity. That aside has the further benefit of peeking their curiosity. "Oh really? I wonder what those are?"

Having hooked them with the bait, Mephistopheles proceeds to elaborate on all the supposedly good arguments against Christianity. The initial allusion to good arguments for Christianity recedes ever further into the background, never developed and quickly forgotten. That was just to gain an opening.

And Mephistopheles needn't even demonstrate that the arguments against Christianity are stronger than the arguments for it. For his purposes, a stalemate is as good as a win. Just leave the erstwhile Christian so intellectually divided that he's now too flummoxed to come down on any side. For Mephistopheles to win, they don't have to go all the way over to atheism. Agnosticism will suffice. His objective isn't to make them atheists but to talk them out of Christianity. What matters is not what they become, but what they cease to be. For his purposes, any alternative to Christianity is a win for the dark side.