So many erroneous assumptions it's not even funny. Utter trash for the most part, but I'll take the time to posit counter-arguments for each of these ridiculous videos.
Video #1:
Even in the first minute he wrongly categorizes both atheist conceptions on creation and the science behind the Big Bang. Big Bang, yes, but he says this was the absolute beginning. Roger Penrose championed the idea that the Big Bang was simply one of several, and that time in this state is curved in on itself to such an extent that linear time as we perceive it cannot be said to exist. In any case, the Big Bang is not an "absolute beginning" as this guy seems to suggest.
And he also ignores quantum observations of particles being created out of "nothing", a phase shift in quantum state that likely created the first particles of the universe.
Beyond that, the obvious problem with a top-down Creator-deity is that it's saying "here's the complex universe. So there must have been an even more complex God to make it." Thus the question, what made God? It's not a legit question, theists say...God simply is. If you want to believe that on faith, ok, but it's not a rational explanation and actually disagrees with any known principle of causality.
Video #2:
All he's outlining is the Anthropic principle, which actually refutes theist dogma, not supports it. The idea that certain factors had to be exactly as they are to make our universe. It's an old argument, not anything new to the religious right's attack on science. The anthropic principle shows how the universe came to be how it is without anything or anyone intervening. The laws of physics saw to that. With the forces of the universe as they are, God isn't needed, nor is He a likely force behind creating it. Most of the forces alluded to (see Frank Tipler's work for more of this line of thought) are constants and literally can't change. So saying "what are the odds of this happening?!?!" means nothing. The odds are 1/1, or 100%. And the others that are variable rely on their interaction with the other forces, thus only a very limited range of variation.
Also, experimental scenarios have been developed that estimate what the universe would be like with different values for these forces. And the conclusion is that we could end up with something similar to our universe, where life could arise, with a variety of values for these variables. No divine intervention needed.
He relishes in quoting Stephen Hawking, btw. Hawking's not religious in any way, shape, or form.
As always, the ID advocates describe evolution as "chance". "It's either chance or design," they say. To the contrary, evolution has very specific methods and makes perfect sense without having to resort to "chance". Evolution didn't happen by ridiculous luck. It happened through natural selection, which makes perfect sense and elegantly displays how we came to be without the need for a designer.
Video #3:
Objective moral values don't exist. It depends on your perspective. To say there's objective moral values is to suggest that something is true for everyone...any culture, time period, person, scenario, etc. It's patently false. Morality is relative to the perspective from which you're viewing it.
He doesn't defend his objective morality except to try to appela to us emotionally ("We know this is true inside of us"
and to try to shock us into agreement with events like rape and the Holocaust.
Laughably, he quotes noted evolutionists to strengthen his argument, immediately after he tried to bring down their argument in the last video. Altruism evolved as a means to survival, which was assimilated into our conscious minds and we tried to turn it into objective truth...we all see where that leads us. Harmful dogmas that create division between religious groups, families, cultures, etc.
Video #4
Ah, the historical Jesus. The one that bears so many similarities to the Egyptian Horus that you could make a pages-long comparison of everything from major themes to tiny details, including the resurrection. The same Jesus that you can find (literally) hundreds of mythological predecessors to, whether it is the virgin birth, resurrection, or many of the details of his ministry.
Yes, the same Jesus we read about in the Gospels, all written decades after his life by people who were not eye-witnesses. The same Gospels that contradict knowledge we have of the time period (the hogwash about Mary and Joseph returning for a census to be taken is particularly outlandish, and we can deny it with historical records of the census that took place years earlier...and was only done because it was said that the savior would be born in Bethlehem).
His "3 points" to prove the resurrection:
1. He doesn't offer evidence for why his token expert believes that there's valid evidence for believing in the empty tomg. None is offered. Also, the "tomb" has been said to have been found numerous times. None can ever be confirmed.
2. Eyewitness accounts aren't proof, and are notably flawed. And these WEREN'T eyewitness accounts....they were supposedly eyewitness accounts written by people who never knew the witnesses.
3. People coming to believe in the resurrection doesn't mean anything...if that were the case, he'd just point at the billions of Christians and say "Ha! I guess we're right."
Video #5:
Shifting the burden of proof?! Priceless, and a tired argument. The universe displays no design and no evidence of a creator. I'd challenge anyone to show me otherwise. The theists are believing in a God without rational evidence....the burden of proof is squarely on their shoulders. "You can't prove God's absence," he says. True. But nothing can be proved, objectively speaking, including his existence. And there's no rational reason to believe in it. Christ, he even says it: "I see no reason why a lack of evidence means God doesn't exist." It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
Video #6:
His 5 pieces of evidence:
1. The existence of the unvierse (detailed earlier) doesn't mean a godly creator....which would be even more improbable, unlikely, and harder to believe than asimple explanation that has nothing to do with God.
...actually the rest of his points are just a summary of the earlier videos.
Atheism might not be right. But Christianity surely isn't either, at least as this guy describes it.
...
A troll do you reckon?
to everyone else.