Science Still Points To God [Spirituality & Religion]

Alright! This my jam baby! Let's do it. Science in no way points to any deistic being, because it simply can't. The scientific methodology itself can only investigate that which can be observed and/or measured. God is an unfalsifiable presupposition and therefore can never be tested in any kind of scientific manner, ever. Unless he himself comes down for testing. Attaching God to any kind of scientific discovery is incredibly dishonest and a giant leap in logic. I'll watch the video and then see if I can explain where they are going wrong.

Okay so right off the bat they start out using circular reasoning (God exists, therefore we find evidence of it's existence through scientific discovery.) and a clear confirmation bias. Then move into an argument from authority to support their circular argument. (Quoting Fred Burnham)
The quote itself is just an argument from popularity. (All these people believe it, so it must be true!) Millions of flies eat shit, so it must taste good!

The universe had a beginning so therefore God? Does this also mean that God would have had to had a beginning as well? How does beginning equate to creation? Two completely different concepts. Yep. The famous transcendental argument or otherwise known as the Kalam cosmological argument popularized by apologist William Lane Craig. The premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That creates a dichotomy within our shared reality between things that began to exist, and things that didn't begin to exist. How do we determine if something began to exist? Observation and the ability to detect it. In the very first premise of this argument there is already a gaping logical flaw. Since God is determined to have always existed, he has to go in the did not begin to exist set. Therefore the argument actually becomes "All things except for God, has a cause." And if we take God out of the did not begin to exist category then he has to go into the began to exist category and that my friends, creates an infinite regression. Who created God? There is a lot more to this argument but since the very first premise is deeply flawed, it's kind of pointless and I need to move on.

More quote mining and argument from authority. The fine tuning argument, another apologetic staple. Almost the same as the first in respect to making a logical leap to God in it's conclusion. This argument states that the universe just operates too perfectly to have happened by chance. When in reality, it's everything but perfect. The overwhelming majority of our planet and the universe is not suitable for human life. The majority of plants will cause harm or kill you if you eat them. Most of the wildlife will try and kill you if you impose, believe it or not. Pretty ridiculous if you give it just one iota of thought.

Argument from complexity, argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance.

This guy is so dishonest. Of course modern science undermines the scientific principles of it's predecessors, that's exactly how science works. How can people take this guy seriously? We still believed in medical humors and all kinds of goofy supernatural/pseudoscientific crap back then.

This is a longer video than I had thought. I think I'm gonna take a break. I may come back to this and I may not.