There he was, trying to convince the readers about the non-existence of God with a very persuasive tone; exactly a quality that lawyers must possess. However, there he was, while couldn't prove himself to be unerringly right, he's begging evidence from believers of God. He used Einstein, Hawking, Darwin's On The Origin of Species and plethoras of other scientific evidences to back up his arguments. Don't get me wrong, science has greatly contribute in helping human to attain a more comfortable life but is every facet of it really so concrete, infallible? No, the hypothesises that were proven to be right by Science are only waiting for the next 'geniuses' to nullify them. That aside, wasn't he putting his faith in the theorists too? He has never touch, see, smell, taste or feel these giants of the science and history in person, and I don't think he understand Einstein or Hawking's full calculations and theories either; Darwin's theory is just another theory (some argued it is, but a hypothesis) until today, something humanly impossible to be evaluated, compared, or proven with current technology, at least until the day someone invents a Time Machine to travel back time and comes back with the answer. Yet, he puts his faith in them, his 'divine being' in the sense of humans in the past.
Next, he talked about making the world a better place based on humanity. Firstly, why do you want to make the world a better place? You do believe in goodness too? Why do you think every being on this planet share the same definition, perspective of goodness as you do? What is the people in the past, present, future hold different view of goodness from you? Aren't you evil in their eyes? So what is humanity? What is goodness? Based on what standard? Based on conscience? Where does that conscience comes from? If mixing a few organic compounds, heating on a Bunsen burner, cooling or maybe bombarding the compound with electrons could, by chance (as you supposed how the universe begun), voila! create conscience in a test tube, why didn't you try doing that? Isn't that an even more solid, infallible option to proof your 'faith' once and for all than to write numerous lengthy arguments, speeches? Oh, you are not a man of science, but pardon me for my dullness in arguments, which elements are you talking about that makes up your personality again? Why has not any one succeeded in making conscience and personalities after billions years of countless trials, errors, experiments? Why can't the giants in science you are so fond of (despite claiming you are not a Man of Science) create conscience or at least, prove where does this trait that runs in all homo sapiens comes from? Or are they lacking in certain mental capabilities? Oh, the time has not come yet for them to reach that stage of scientific advancement to prove this 'fact', so, now you are putting your faith in a future 'unknown genius'? Yet, he puts his faith in them, his 'divine being' in the sense of self and on someone(?) in the unknown future.
A mathematical equation even popped out later in his argument. To make it even more convincing, he quoted Dawkin's what if I am wrong? At first glance, it seemed quite 'true', but it's a completely different story at second glance. With every single point he made, he made a huge assumption beforehand, exactly the statements that he, himself could not prove. Yet, he puts his faith in them, his 'divine being' in the sense of waves of thoughts, or should I put it in scientifically-proven terms, surges of electrical impulses in our mind as a result of chemical reactions between hormones.
There are many other flaws, which I am quite surprised that such an intelligent, bright, eloquent young man like him would have overlooked as he tried to make his arguments perfect, infallible. I apologise for the straw man statement I am about to put up here but: If he were to counteract with 'no human is perfect', why exactly is he putting his faith in himself/humanity then? Why is he thrusting his hopes in himself that will inevitably fail him, when any god, as he assumed, could be right? However, we are not playing "Risk" or rolling a dice here, nor am I interested in worshipping with an "what-if" in the centre of my soul all the time. We are sure of what we hope for and certain for what we do not see. Therefore, I deeply apologise again, my fellow being, for I could not hold this omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfect God in my palm and show Him, as an object/calculation/theory/philosophy right in front of your eyes that might have resulted in your current 'belief'. As your friend has put it in very direct manner:
I do not understand what you did meant by "This, is precisely why I do not believe" when you have clearly put your faith in the past, present and future, on deities of all kinds. My mind does not contain the answers to your sophisticated assumptions, nor am I equipped with ability to debate, refute and counter your complex arguments eloquently, unless the Spirit does it through me. I could only pray for you: May the Lord open your heart, mind and soul to Him, then you fully understand and be part of what He means by Love. May God bless you.
Did you not know that we as humans are limited in our natural form in many ways? Simply put it this way, a normal person is created with five senses to help go through the day doing daily tasks. What about one that’s born with no gift of sight? He lacks one and thus he regards sight as a non-existing factor that most of us enjoy and believe exist. So here’s the deal; lets say God is something to be experienced and “seen” with senses 7 and 8 then I strongly believe we are missing out the point of God’s existence. At the end of day, we find ourselves debating to whether or not God exist based on scientific methods, protocols and humanly understanding without realizing how limited we are in terms of abilities and knowledge.