Rather than a make a video (I'm way too scared to do that), I just flooded the comments with responses to the questions.  I was as succinct as possible.  Damn YouTube for allowing only 500 character comments.  The questions were stupid and the guy went all over the place.  I recall several questions that were really four questions and two questions.  I believe the real number of questions asked was at least 15.  Goodness.  I can't believe theists still post videos with the same exact questions over and over again.  It's good practise for us, but it's tiring and getting old.  I'm starting to wish that people would just stop being so dishonest with themselves... wait... I've been wishing that all along!  Well, perhaps the more these people are pounded back with replies to their inane nonsense the deeper a gouge will be put into the beliefs to make room for some intellectual honesty.  I can't believe that these people are as stupid as the questions they're asking, or else I'd have to believe that they're too stupid to ask the questions in the first place. [/rant]

I had to smile when he said not to bother asking where god comes from, since god, by definition, he says, is uncaused. And hoverboards don't work on water. Reification, anyone? I don't have the patience to address the demands of every hillbilly/yabbo who wanders onto the scene.

Here's my reply in writing. I'm going to try and post it in video form next week...

***

1) If there is no God, why is there anything at all? (i.e. where did the universe come from?)

You’ve got us on this one for the time being. We’ve got pretty good evidence that a Big Bang started it all, but what was there 1,000 years before the Big Bang? A billion years before the Big Bang? Multiple universes with life cycles similar to the one we currently live in? We’re not sure yet. But to be fair, science has really only begun to develop the capabilities necessary to answer such big questions. Computing technology has only been around for about 60 years, and has only become very powerful in the last 20 or so. Christianity has had 1,500 years, give or take, to make its case. Now let science have 1,500 years to make its case.

2) Where is the evidence that life could have begun without divine interference? If not for divine interference, how did life begin?

Unless this guy wants to study and truly understand things like organic chemistry, evolutionary biology, etc., there’s no point trying to tackle this question. Deludedgod has done it plenty.

3) How can evolution explain features of irreducible complexity? (i.e. wings on birds that supposedly evolved from reptiles – how is something with wings more survivable?).

Again, requires that the guy actually cares to study evolution and understand it. He’s putting forth the classic Life-Is-Too-Complex-So-God-Must-Have-Created-It argument.

4) How can the evolutionary model be true since the fossil record clearly shows that most major groups emerged at the same time? (i.e. Cambrian explosion – fossil record doesn’t show gradual change. Darwinian model does not account for what we see today…)

This is just an extension of question #3. And he cites Stephen J. Gould, a prominent evolutionary biologist who died a few years ago. Gould may have been a huge contributor to the study of evolution, but it is also well-documented that many of his theories were not accepted by the scientific community. So citing a dead, controversial scientist here is a strawman.

5) If there is no objective standard of right or wrong that was furnished by a Creator, how can anything be wrong? On what objective truth do you base morality? What can you point to that says murdering babies is any less desirable a way to increase food supply than harvesting fruit from trees?

Simple – most people like living without interference from others. “Do unto others…” is common sense. It didn’t need to be delivered by a creator. The murdering babies bit is a strawman.

6) Which is the logically defensible position: That matter eternally existed or came into existence by itself and arranged itself into complex living systems, or that a god of infinite power and knowledge created everything? (In science - things move to disorder when left on their own rather than towards order?)

This is another application of the Life-Is-Too-Complex-So-God-Must-Have-Created-It argument. Unless he cares to fully study and understand astrophysics, etc., there’s no point in arguing. I don’t know what he means by the last part, about things tending to move towards disorder rather than order in science.

7) What came first – the code in DNA or the organism that depends on it for life? How can natural selection produce something that is required for natural selection to operate?

This is an extension of questions 3 & 4.

8- If scientists accept that a set of signals from outer space would be proof of extraterrestrial intelligence, why won’t they accept that the information coded in DNA is the result of intelligence also?

Aliens have nothing to do with human DNA. My question in return is: What if there are aliens out there? How would that reconcile with your belief that God created us in his image?

9) What if God of the bible is real? Do you have a list of reasons why you didn’t accept him? Under close scrutiny, will those reasons betray the fact that you don’t want to believe, and you would rather stick with anything that sounds good rather than look too closely?

Of course. Easy question. I and every other atheist have a long list of reasons we don’t accept God. And I would argue that theists are the ones clinging to things that sound good, rather than looking too closely. It’s not that we don’t want to believe. We have looked closely at the alternatives, and we’ve arrived at the conclusion that it makes more sense that God doesn’t exist. If God does exist, he’s indifferent at best, and malevolent at worst. If he is real, and I come before him at the pearly gates, all I could say is: “You have some nerve.”

10) If I answered all your objections to your satisfaction, would you submit your life to Jesus/God? If you say no, you must admit that your objections are just a smokescreen. Your real problem is that you don’t want to submit or be accountable to rules given by a creator god. I don’t know everything about this videocamera, but I’m able to use it and get benefits from it…Don’t judge God as bad when we did things like that (mass murder) in the old testament.

It wouldn’t be possible for him to answer all of my objections to my satisfaction, short of proving concretely that God exists. True, I don’t want to submit to rules given by a creator God. I want to submit to rules that are common-sense and generally accepted by rational people. There’s a lot of overlap between the two sets of rules, which shouldn’t be surprising. But I’ll take the latter any day. And I’m glad he doesn’t know anything about the camera, but is able to get benefits from it. This is indicative of the theist attitude in general toward science. Those who believe in God also believe in science to a great extent (especially science of the medical variety). The only science they reject is that which shows the existence of their God is unlikely. If theists are so convinced they’re going to live forever after they die, why bother taking medicines and seeking medical treatments that will prolong their earthly lives?

Oh yeah, and let's just ignore all that nasty stuff God did in the Old Testament since it doesn't quite fit the image of a loving and compassionate God that Christians want so badly.

I noticed that too. It smacked of "Don't bring up that argument because I still haven't got a 

refutation for it and I hate having my ass kicked with it routinely." 

What he is really asking in question 10 is, "what would it take to change your mind?".

I would like to hear him answer his own question. I suspect he would not give up his belief in god even if god himself appeared to him and said there is no god.