This is no different that Thomas Aquinas's argument for the existence of god. He basically says, think of a being that none greater can be conceived. It starts the debate from the perspective of god exists whether you believe it or not. If you can, you've proven his thesis. If you can't you are a liar. Also that tactic this speaker uses, is the speak faster than the opposition so they can't comprehend everything debate method. You notice he speaks normal until he start with his thesis and he speeds up his speech dramatically. Its not uncommon. Look up videos of high school or college debate teams. The whole premise is to speak very fast interject some facts with some jibberish so when its the opposition teams time to rebut, they will lose points because they will not have rebutted everyone of their points. They win because they practice at speaking super super fast, not because they are good debaters. Debaters do it to confuse their opponents and also do it within a time limit. This guy has no time limit so his only motivation for doing so is to confuse his audience. If god is a absolute matter of fact and can be proven, why resort to such tactics? Why wouldn't he speak so everyone can follow and everyone can understand. Why cut the video off after he finishes so it seems like no one had a response. Of course no one had a response, cause they cut if off immediately after he said it. I'm not an atheist but resorting to tricks and tactics to prove a point is superfluous. It destroys the ability to have a dialogue.