This video isn't about reason or truth, it's just using a bunch of strawmen so that atheists can sleep more soundly.
This video presents it's strawmen in a weird order intentionally to try to make each request "god" makes seem separate from all the others, which they are not. I'm going to be explaining why these strawmen are wrong in a more sensible order.
(Preface: You can see from the length of my response why it's so much easier to just use strawmen then to actually argue the points. Nothing worth saying can be explained in so few words. This response is for anyone that felt like the video raised legitimate problems (which it did not))
Something cannot come from nothing, which implies it is necessary that something has always existed (or else we would currently still have nothing, which we do not).
If you believe free will exists this implies it is necessary that you believe that will is a causeless cause (that is, a cause which itself has no cause).
Since it is necessary that something has always existed, and the only thing in existence that is causeless is will, then we can conclude that the thing which has always existed is a will.
Since time and space have not always existed, this will could not exist exclusively within time and space. Since will is the only causeless cause, and before the universe there was only this will, it is necessary that the universe was a creation of the will. The idea that something that is spaceless and timeless cannot act is ludicrous because before the universe something that was spaceless and timeless had to act in order for the universe to come into existence. If nothing acted, then the universe is causeless, which is an attribute that only will can have.
In order for the will to exist inside of its creation and outside it must exist in at least two distinct persons. This is necessary because in order for the will to interact with a time dependant universe it must make part of itself time dependant. But seeing as the will exists outside of time, it would know everything for the simple reason that anything that could be known "at any time" to the will would be known "at all times". I put that in quotes because obviously if it exists outside of time, the word time becomes meaningless. But this shows the necessity of the will being all knowing, because unlike us, who don't know a thing one moment but know it the next, the will outside of time cannot change, this includes in knowledge. Therefore the will is omniscient. Since the will created the universe, it is reasonable to assume it is omnipotent, as it can will things into existence. Since the will is omnipotent, it is reasonable to assume that it can be everyone at once if it desires to be, which is omnipresence.
Claiming that this is all "supernatural" is pointless, because we are talking about what must have preceded nature. We know that existence preceded nature (i.e. the universe) so whatever existed before will be supernatural, but that does not mean that we cannot know anything about it.
Next we get into morality. The video claims that God cannot have a plan for us and give us free will at the same time. But this is nonsense. People make plans all the time about things they cannot control. Parents want things for children, even though they ultimately leave it up to their children to decide. The chess analogy would make more sense if it was the opponent that had free will, not the pieces. A parent does not need to take away their child's free will in order to direct them. A man that robs a bank has a plan, even though he has no control over all the terrified people in the bank. So to claim that you cannot have a plan or a means of carrying it out without controlling people's free will is false. And it is because God has allowed us to be free that we have the ability to go wrong. And the more powerfully he makes a will, the more potential it has for good or for evil. This is why there is no sense in asking why he made something as bad as the devil. The better question would be why did he make something as free as us? He could have made us like puppets, but evidently he didn't want that sort of creation. A creation which only moved when he pulled the strings. To claim that Satan would have no desire or reason to oppose God is naive. I have talked to people that claim they would oppose the God I describe, and they have much less means. Jesus was called logos, which amoungst other things means "to reason". Hateful people do not act from reason, they act from hate, and evil hates what is good. If you have not seen this with your own eyes, I hope you will someday.
If you listen to people quarreling you will inevitably hear someone say something like "That's not fair, you made a promise" or "I shared with you, now you should share with me". Everyday people make the assumption that there is some standard which all people at bottom understand, and ought to follow. When people break promises they often say that the promise was not fair, you will rarely hear them say, "I don't care", because deep down, they agree about the standard, they would just like an exception in there case. Some people say that this is evolutionary instinct, a herd mentality. But often this herd mentality comes in direct contradiction with the survival instinct. If a man is drowning, you have two instincts, the herd instinct is telling you to save him, and the survival instinct is telling you to not risk your own life. But there is a third thing that is telling you which instinct you ought to follow, and which you ought to suppress. This third thing is neither of the instincts, it comes from somewhere else, and it often sides with the weaker of the impulses, and causes you to do things like stir up your pity for the drowning man in order to get you to do what you don't want to do, but know that you should. This third thing cannot be accounted for without presupposing the existence of God.
In order for there to be objective morality it must come from God. It is therefore nonsense to claim that God is evil, because he is the source of your understand of what is good. If you disagree with something he has done, it is likely because you don't see the whole picture. To illustrate this point, a verse from scripture,
"But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women." And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal." - 1 Samuel 15:33
Saul thought that it was good to spare the Agag, even though God told him not to. God knew what Agag had done, and that his death would be justice. One of the big problems that we have today is that we don't understand justice anymore. Humanity has become so soft that they no longer understand it, and they often see justice as an evil. As for natural disasters and the like, people often say, "How could a good God let such a thing happen?" but how can you argue that God is not good if goodness cannot exist without God? Why do you believe that the world is not as it should be, unless of course you have been given some idea of a paradise? Afterall, if the world is all that we have ever known, and it is all that we ever will known, then why is it that we all think that there is something wrong with it?
In summary, all of these childish attacks come from an ignorance of philosophy. Everything in this video has been said for hundreds of years, and rejected by many great thinkers. Even thinking atheists don't try to use the arguments, because they know that if you assume an objective morality then you've already lost. They also know that if you assume the existence of free will and moral responsibility that they have already lost. The only way you can defend atheism at all is if you assume that their is no real morality, and that we are all just biological machines that are no different from computers. This video however is just indulgent nonsense.
