Confusing attacks on Atheism

THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE LOSES (with commentary) - YouTube

The video above is an episode of the Atheist Experience, where a young man claims to defeat Jeff and Matt. I'm having trouble understanding his points, honestly I think its all Jargon but maybe some of you can shed some light on what this fella is saying.

These are the ones I don't quite get.
"how can there be a total or a balance beyond space-time and quantifiable data?"
3:05 "god would interact with the physical world through the logic of unified opposites: namely, through us and god: Transcendence = imminence"
4:11 "There can only be one thing beyond space-time (beyond relativity): Absoluteness."
4:12 "god is the foundation for existence "subsisting" EXISTING.... beyond demonstration not being anywhere or at any time"

Thanks for reading.

It most certainly is. I would like to think there is something much deeper than insanity taking place inside his mind.

Seems like the lack of evidence is proof of omnipotence, its undefinable nature has become the evidence needed to validate his belief.

Do you think maybe you could analyze his statements in this video and help me understand his claim? I was hoping a theist would help me out with this one but an intelligent atheist should do just fine.

I'm still trying to sharpen my tools for discussion and I have trouble with pseudo-intellectual religious ramblings.

Originally Posted by Blondin

Sounds like a lot of unsupported assertions to me. The kind of logic that someone might apply when he can't produce anything that is actually grounded in evidence.

I would agree....but then thats about all they have are assertions and nothing else.

Originally Posted by Jeebus

I would agree....but then thats about all they have are assertions and nothing else.

Philosophy devoid of a rational argument is completely useless. My intention was not to berate this gentleman, it was to find a meaning behind his irrational and confusing argument. It's not that I don't have an understanding of the words he chose to use, I just didn't understand the context. I thought (Hopefully) They were profound Metaphors, something that could possibly stand as a reasonable defense.

Starting from the moment I decided I was Atheist I have searched for the BEST possible argument a theist can produce. Sadly I become less and less optimistic as the days pass. (I love a good argument)

He repeated the same thing over and over, How can something exist without space and time. Ignoring the fact the basis for his whole argument about the existence of god is equally relevant to the argument against the existence of god, and cannot prove or disprove god.