Interesting. Reading this, it occurs to me that, while I may find some arguments for God more emotionally or psychologically compelling than others, more respectable, less offensive and less risible than others, etc., nonetheless that doesn't mean I believe those arguments are ultimately stronger than others. All such arguments are unsound, and once I unpack and unmask them, I no longer think they have any strengths at all. This made me curious about exactly how Vogt phrases it. I looked up his article. He says: "I like to ask, 'Which argument for God do you find strongest, and why does it fail?' Or to ask it another way, 'What’s the best reason to believe in God, and why does it not convince you?'" Very curious. The format of this question is: What's an argument that has strengths? Enumerate its weaknesses. He doesn't ask the person to enumerate the strengths, which would be a different way of identifying whether that person is skilled at identifying "strong" arguments for God. I suspect the reason he doesn't format the question this way is that it would open a window for the atheist to respond: "One argument seems strong to me, but on reflection, not even this argument has any good components, hence there are no strong arguments for God." This gives the atheist an opportunity to confidently state that they have pondered the question before and that they've reached an overall conclusion. The atheist doesn't merely believe that one particular theistic argument is weak; they maintain that no theistic arguments have any enduring strengths. They've simply reasserted their atheistic position while having been given an opportunity to state their credentials. I think that's why Vogt doesn't recommend phrasing the opening question that way. He recommends a dialogue in which the theist says: Pick a strong argument for God. Tell me why it's weak. Wait, if you think it's weak, why did you pick it? You must not be aware of any stronger arguments! Which means you're generally unaware of theism, and I must educate you!