[orangeitis]

I'll post on here what I posted as a comment in the video.

First of all, you must feed facts into logic for logic to be true. It don't matter one single bit if the logic is consistent, nor does it matter if it makes sense.

Second, your "logic" could apply to any deity. Or any imaginary being. If it could apply to your personal god, why can't it apply to others? And how can you really tell which one your logic meshes with? No god has been demonstrated to even exist, so until that happens, your logic is meaningless.

Also, prayer is demonstrably unreliable, no matter which deity you're praying to. And the most important thing.
"This fact is true, therefore you must accept that it's true for my god" <-Why?
You're not using the path to truth. You're observing a fact, then taking the leap of faith to your presuppositioned god, saying that it must be true for it. You need to provide facts instead of telling everyone to have faith.

We might not be able to see the electron, but we can observe it's effects, test it's measurements, and interact with it physically. We can confirm our data through peer review.
Can we do that with your god, or for that matter any others? No.
Your arguments fail.