Critical analysis of Hamza Andrea Tzortis' lecture- Islam or Atheism. Which one makes more sense

I apologise. My shift keys are busted. Therefore I could not key in question marks in the title.

This is not a post on Islam. Hamza asks “Islam or atheism: which makes more sense?” Therefore this is a post on fallacies in critical thought. I am a proponent of critical thought and will be intellectually honest. I am not an atheist. I am a proponent of critical thought, a humanist and a naturalist. Please do not take the position of a creed against me. I have written multiple posts on multiple subjects of illogical and uncritical thought. Read my critical analysis of his talk and judge for yourself if I have wronged him by identifying the fallacies in critical thought below that he had committed. (Question everything and everyone and that includes me.)

Hamza does not understand philosophy as he so claims. Since he clearly states that he is using rationality and philosophy to prove his case, he deserves to be judged on that basis.
He states that his position is one of a rationalist. Then he should know that an asserted casual chain with no proven premise (“God exists” is an unfalsifiable claim) only shows the effect. We cannot affirm the consequent from the effect.

His argument that he is of a rationalist stand and that atheists are of an empirical stand are in ‘opposite camps’ is a terrible crime of ‘false dichotomy’. Rationalism and empiricism are mutually supportive tools of critical thought. And by delineating that empiricism is not ‘rational’ in nature is pure intellectual dishonesty.
He then attacks Dawkins personally- ad hominem- thereby emotionally getting the audience on his side before attacking Dawkin’s argument. Dawkins has done this to others before too. We should do well to always remember to avoid this human failing.

He then goes on to try to argue for immateriality of the cause which is unfalsifiable and thereby inconclusive. Once he has taken this step, he can insert any answer that he wants without any proof.

He tries to prove the logic of asking for the regression of cause to be illogical.“ The very question denies the existence of the universe.” Thereby should we not ask the question? Did this line of rational thought not give us many answers to questions in life?

'The cause must have a will.' Yet again, this is unfalsifiable and also not consistent with reality. Not all causes have wills.

"This is so in line with the Quran’s answer.' What he does not educate his audience on is that many other religions also hold this view. Therefore he is engaging in a fallacy of critical thought that is “cherry picking”.
Then he goes on to defend miracles. He states that natural laws are inductive generalisations of patterns in the universe. This is equivocation. Contrary to what he says, Natural laws are overwhelmingly consistent inductive observations of patterns in the universe.

He states that consciousness is immaterial and therefore does not have its roots in matter. This is yet again unfalsifiable. Consciousness is a complex cognitive state that we are still discovering about. Should we not be intellectually cautious and hold our judgments first before we set a cast-in-stone explanation? He says that ‘Dawkins says that he does not know.’ This is a perfectly acceptable position for a critical thinker to admit that you do not know all yet. Why does he fault Dawkins for this?

He then goes on to talk about the Quran as a linguistic miracle. But he fails to educate his audience about other religious text such as the Rig Vedas which are linguistic miracles as claimed by their believers as well. Yet again, this is ‘cherry picking’.

And his argument about the massive following of his faith thereby proving its validity is one of ad populum.

He then goes on an “Atheists have no moral basis” attack. This is the fallacy in critical thought known as “mudslinging”. He reduces the atheistic goal in life to “procreation of DNA” and commits the “straw man” fallacy in critical thought.

In conclusion, Hamza's whole premise for his argument is based on a generalisation that the position of atheists is that of empiricism thereby reducing the two camps into a falsely dichotomous state and his oppon...ent to a 'straw man' [another fallacy in critical thought] which he then proceeds to knock down. In the process, he commits many other fallacies in critical thought. Therefore his entire argument is not sound nor maximally reasonable.