It's not that the video is wrong, it says that the claim that god is exists is unjustified, but not necessarily wrong.

The video is wrong because the example has little to do with the universe. God exists! Okay?

Theorem: All human reasoning is ultimately based on faith (not necessarily "religious" faith).

This comes in two parts: either human reasoning ultimately boils down to circular reasoning, or it is not based on anything at all.

If you doubt, this, find yourself a friend and ask them any question, followed by and endless number of "Why?" questions. Because humans are not infinite, and because there is ultimately nothing that all humans can agree on as absolute fact, at some point they will reach a foundational truth that simply must be true for everything else they've said to be true - their ultimate "cause". This "truth" may go hand-in-hand with other "truths" (the bible is true -> God says so -> they Bible says God says so -> etc), or it may be an ultimate truth by itself (the universe, in some understandable though perhaps infinite way, is ultimately self-creating/self-sufficient). Either way, though, at some point you can't ask "Why?" anymore, and an ultimate reason has been reached. Since in both cases, logic CANNOT justify this "truth" (to justify it would require a yet-further "truth", which we've already concluded doesn't exist at this point), then the "truth" must be accepted without logical, pre-existing proof. To accept a truth in this way is faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith, #1).

Now, back to the video. His ultimate premise lies in the fact that there is no way to know that an entity exists without proof - which he states, in his scenario, by trapping the object in a box. He notes that we cannot believe what anyone says about the contents of the box, because we have no proof that they are correct. If, however, we make that person's words our fundamental faith - our ultimate "cause" - then as long as they are completely correct, we can build a true and valid system of truths from what they have said.

Since all human reason is based on faith (as shown above), this method for discovering reality is as valid as any other, as long as the truths based on the fundamental faith are ultimately consistent with one another. Thus, the validity of the object of our fundamental faith can be tried, tested, and confirmed (or rejected) based on the consistency of truths derived from that most basic truth. Since the human mind is finite, we can expect that even in the case of invalid starting assumptions, a single human or group of humans may never discover the contradiction in their logical system, as long as the system is consistent in most areas.

Therefore, the video is incorrect. As long as the content of the box affects the non-contents, then someone can make a claim about the box, and that claim can be assumed, built upon, and verified or denied based on its implications for the universe outside of the box.

And what about if the content of the box doesn't affect the universe outside of it? Well then, my friend, you're talking about something that is not part of our universe, and is thus neither relevant nor possible for us to consider. We are creatures of this universe: how could we even begin to put bounds of any sort on an entity not belonging to our universe, when we ourselves are bound by our own universe? Since such a discussion is not relevant to our universe, and since the video is relevant to our universe, we can conclude that such a discussion would not affect the truth of this video.

Some things are immensely hard to define in any kind of language we know. For instance, when we rediscover a piece of music we listened to a lot in the past then we suddenly get a grasp of what it felt like to be alive in those old days. Such a sensation is probably impossible to define, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Many sensations are hard to describe without refering to other sensations. Try to define the taste of watermelon without refering to other sensations, I doubt it can be done. Furthermore, I can't even even get close to descriping what it feels like to be alive in this very instance. If I try to nail it down I always neglect something. If I really pay attention I may get a feel of what's going on, but I may never truly explain it. But the fact that I can't explain my situation doesn't mean I that I am not situated in this world.

I think it's the same thing going on when people say that God is impossible to define. They get a sense of his presence, but they simultanously acknowledge that they can't possibly nail this experience down. That doesn't mean that God is impossible to talk about in a religious language, but it sure is impossible to talk about in a scientific one. It's like trying to explain the taste of melon using chemical terminology. It will never explain what it feels like. But the fact that God is undefinable in any rigorous language we know of doesn't mean that his existence can't be justfied; his existence can be justified through direct experience.

This guy's channel is awesome btw

Didn't have to watch the video to say this....save your breath on constantly trying to disprove God's existence.

A. your not going to change any believers minds if they truly are

B.Of course all the atheists are going to agree/ Christians disagree

C. That clearly make this another rhetorical debate which just means more create debates/ideals need to be had

The main argument presented in the video is about EVIDENCE.

It demands pure solid, physical, and tangible evidence that God exists:

Whether there is tangible evidence or not, the ones who demand clear evidence without the urge to struggle, think deeply, look for clues, and reflect, don't have the eyes that can see clearly and do not deserve to see the evidence and to know God.

"Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe."2:7 (Al-Baqarah)

"Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment."2:8 (Al-Baqarah)

Those two verses are evident in the knowledge and wisdom of God.

"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?"21:30 (Al-'Anbyā')

The universe was created in a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, is still expanding today, and billions of years from now it might recollapse by its own gravity with a Big Crunch (or continue expanding forever, Big Chill). Moslems say that this is what Allah says. The Quran says that on the first day of creation, God made the heavens and the Earth meshed together, tight and compact (Big Bang), continues to expand it into the universe we know today and at the last day God will recompress it into its original state (Big Crunch).

Further more, there are numerous miracles in the verses of the Quran that predicted scientific facts that could not have been discovered during the time the Quran was revealed which was about 1400 years ago.

A good example is predicting the stages of formation of the human being when he is in microscopic mode:

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm