Most of us would recognize this to be a futile question. The cube could be large or small. It could be a solid block or a vacuum chamber of nothing but sparse particles of gas. [Cube changes to reflect these possibilities]. Or it might contain any one of billions of permutations of familiar or novel objects. [Objects such as milk, container of blood, key, matches, skeleton with pumpkin head, alien creature, weird signs appear in cube]. You could never give a precise, justifiable answer.

But if you were asked, “What does the cube NOT contain?”, you could give many answers. For example, the cube could not possibly contain the Amazon River, the planet Mars, or absurd objects such as “a bed made of sleep”. In fact, there would be more perfectly valid answers to this second question than you could list in a million lifetimes. [Words “Does Not Contain” appears on cube, with arrow pointing to words setting forth those non-possibilities outside cube, followed by the following scrolling list:

[Words “Countless possibilities” and “Countless impossibilities” appear on either side of cube; Words “we can’t know was IS in the cube appear below with arrow pointing to “Countless possibilities; words “We know these are NOT in the cube appear below word “Countless impossibilities with arrow pointing to scrolling list of alleged imposssibilities].

This illustrates an interesting asymmetry concerning the contents of this cube. Despite there being countless possibilities and impossibilities, without evidence from the cube itself we can only ever make valid, justifiable statements about what is NOT inside the cube, not what IS.

It’s true that someone claiming, for example, that the cube contained nothing but a wooden spoon might be right, but since, without evidence, they could provide no valid justification for such a claim, there would be literally no reason for anyone to accept it. [Woman appears with cartoon speech bubble indicating she’s saying “It contains nothing but a wooden spoon”; rest of words of narrative appear beside her].

What if we were talking about a realm of existence independent of our universe that like the concealed cube is physically inaccessible to us? [Words “Inaccessible realm of existence” appear above oval labeled “our universe”].Would things be different? Would we be able to deduce precisely what occupied such a realm, such as a divine being? [Words “Divine Being” appear outside  universe oval, and are crossed out by diagonal red line]. No, there’s the same asymmetry as before. Countless kinds of beings might exist independently of our universe. Countless logically impossible beings cannot. [Words “countless possible beings” and “countless impossible being appear on either side of words “inaccessible realm of being” with arrows pointing to them]. But while we can list many kinds of beings that can’t exist there because they violate logic, [arrow point from words “countless impossible beings” to words “we can list beings which CAN’T exist,” which in turn have arrow pointing to the following list:

we can’t list those, if any, that do. [Arrow points from words “countless possible beings” down to words “we can’t list beings that DO exist”, with arrow in turn pointing down to word “UNKNOWABLE.”] Any attempt to argue that a specific divine being exists in an inaccessible realm of reality is an attempt to argue for either the impossible or the unknowable.[Angry-looking man appears in middle of screen with cartoon speech bubble saying “Divine Being X exists in an inaccessible realm of being!”].

Logic alone can refute impossible beings, [arrow points down from those words to list of allegedly impossible beings] but it can’t show that possible beings actually exist, without evidence. [Those words appear on other side of screen].   If you can’t at some point provide measurable, verifiable evidence for the specific being you claim exists, all the argument in the world won’t establish your claim as fact. [Cartoon speech bubbles with words “Argument A”, “Argument B”, “Argument C”, “Argument D” appear above angry man, only to be popped by hand with pin]. This is one reason why as soon as anyone claims they have a logical requirement that requires the existence of one personal creator of our universe we know it will be fallacious [Cartoon speech bubble above angry man says “I have a logical argument that requires the existence of one personal creator of our universe”, with words soon covered with words “will be fallacious”].because they’ve failed at a basic level to understand what’s required to establish such an existence claim.   It’s just a question of identifying where the errors are.

For example, the theologian William Lane Craig has asserted that our universe had an original cause which, because it created our time and space, had to transcend time and space. Transcending our time and space doesn’t necessarily mean something transcends all time and space. [Craig is pictured with various words from the narrative popping up beside him].

However, his conclusion that this non-temporal, non-spatial cause would have to be a changeless disembodied mind is more seriously flawed. A changeless mind is by definition non-functioning. Minds and purposeful creation depend on change. Craig’s changeless creator is self-contradicting and belongs to the category of the logically impossible.

However seemingly plausible they may sound to the unwary or the already persuaded, all popular arguments for the existence of specific gods are based on false premises and/or conclusions and unjustified presuppositions, and a hundred invalid arguments don’t accumulate into one valid one. [List of the following arguments appear on screen:

However, when you’re not so willing to respect differences, when you disparage, attack, or work to create disadvantage for others because they don’t share your beliefs, it shouldn’t surprise you when those you try to oppress object to this unreasonable attitude and expose the flawed arguments that shore it up. [Cartoon speech bubbles from speakers off screen say “You’re worthless,” “Your lives are unlivable,” “This is a nation of Religion X,” “You’re amoral,” “I don’t know that atheists should be considered citizens,” You’re human garbage” and are then flicked off screen by two hands]. A belief in one or more gods might sustain you in your own life, [women pictured praying at table with her speech bubble saying “What’s the harm in saying grace”] but when you pressure others to adopt your beliefs and participate in practices associated with those beliefs, you give up the luxury of not having to explain yourself. [second aggravated-looking woman revealed to be at table; her speech bubble says “Please, either prove your God exists or stop nagging”].  You give yourself the burden of proof, and certain reasons that might seem sound when justifying a belief to yourself are simply not valid when you’re trying to justify existence claims to other people, however passionately you express them. [speech bubbles appear above praying woman which say “But OBVIOUSLY He Exists,” “He cured my illness,” “I feel His spirit inside me,” I have FAITH!”; red rectangles with word “invalid” superimposed over each bubble].. You can’t pester and bully people and then retreat behind faith when challenged on your behavior. And if you can’t demonstrate that gods exist, resorting to emotional blackmail to try to get people to believe is a dishonest tactic. [Praying woman cries, with speech bubble saying “Why are you trying to upset me?; companion responds, “You’re upsetting yourself.”]

When those who don’t believe in gods show theistic claims to be invalid, [companion from table now standing next to a man, and pops his speech bubble which says “Complexity proves God”] it’s often claimed that they’re trying to prove gods don’t exist. [Man’s speech bubble says “Why do you need to prove God doesn’t exist?” to which woman responds “I’m just exposing your flawed reasoning.”] In fact, all they’re doing is exposing flawed reasoning and encouraging intellectual honesty. It’s understandable that when some have their claims debunked it’s an uncomfortable feeling, and employing red herrings becomes an attractive way to wriggle out of admitting their mistakes. [Man’s speech bubble morphs into fish shape]. But debunking claims about the existence of gods is just showing those who make such claims that they can’t assert what they’re trying to assert. [Woman’s bubble says “you can’t assert what you’re trying to assert”].

[Heading on page: “Defining the Divine (where the problems begin”]

The question of defining divine entities is where the problems begin. As soon as you define any god you must justify why you’ve defined it that way, giving a valid reason for each quality you’re attributing to it. [Speech bubble says “God X has attributes A, B, C & D”; each letter is then circled with arrow pointing to words “Need justification”].Many who realize they can’t justify any particular definitions avoid them altogether, [words “God ‘Y’ is an energy which defies definition” appear in speech bubble], but without definition there is no adequately formed concept to have a belief about, [those words then appear beneath bubble] and this is the stumbling block when people are asked to define the gods they claim exist. As their divine definitions become more specific they have more to justify, the flaws in their logic become more numerous and there arguments become easier to refute. [Illustrated with a meter’s needle pointing toward word “Specific”].  Conversely, as their definitions become more vague the entities they are proposing cease to have any practical relevance. [Meter needles points to “Vague”]. Ironically, the way many people define gods means that as well as having no logical support, they can’t be supported with evidence either. [Words from narrative appear on screen].

Imagine a group of people unfamiliar with electronic technology being duped into watching a carefully staged CGI animation of a man turning into a lion. [Man/lion transformation depicted]. If they thought they had just seen evidence of divine magic, we would know that conclusion was false and due to an illusion of technology beyond their experience. Likewise, if you were to see something genuinely jaw-dropping, like stars spelling out words in the sky, [stars form words “Stop fighting!”; man on earth points up and says “Look! A message from God X!] you’d have no basis for drawing any reliable conclusions about the specific causes of what you were witnessing. You could be having your brain expertly controlled by aliens. [Second man appears saying, “No! It’s a message from God Y!]. You could be having a psychotic break from reality. [Men fight, with first man clutching second’s throat and saying “It’s MY God!”]. We already know that brains can conjure up richly detailed worlds when we dream, and that their dysfunction can cause us to hallucinate. If some kind of intelligence was responsible, anything with the ability to manipulate physical matter or our perceptions to that extent could easily disguise itself so we could never be sure of its identity. With such fallible brains and such limited technology, a spectacle like this would be beyond the scale of what we could comprehend or investigate. [Words from narrative appear].

Could life forms of vastly greater intelligence and power exist beyond the current reach of our perception and technology? Certainly. But even if we were ever to find evidence of greater intelligence that still would not constitute evidence of specific gods. Even if some kind of intelligence initiated the existence of our universe, there’s nothing to say what the nature of that intelligence was; whether it was a single or a collective intelligence; whether or not part of that intelligence remains interested in the universe, let alone the affairs of humans; whether or not that intelligence is aware of our tiny planet, let alone capable of communicating with its inhabitants; or even whether or not that intelligence still exists.

When you impartially review a factual claim, that, for example, one divine universe creator currently monitors and judges every human life, the lines, the layers of unjustified assumptions needed to make such a claim become starkly apparent. One would be no less justified in proposing a race of aliens, that created our universe with an advanced machine and annihilated themselves in the process. [Alien finger depicted pushing red button]. As soon as you propose any specific being, the nature of whose existence can’t be reliably examined and quantified, even in principle, you’re talking about a non-scientific concept that’s unsupportable by either logic or evidence. [Block containing words “God X” falls when supporting blocked titled “Logic” and “Evidence” disappear].Without logic or evidence at your disposal you have no grounds for demanding that anyone agree with you. [Angry woman says “Agree with me” and “You’re not part of this family!”] You certainly have no grounds for bullying and ostracizing them when they don’t. [Red lines cross out woman’s words]. But if that’s the way you deal with independent thought, your fallacious arguments will continue to be exposed until you grow out of your need for everyone to subscribe to your faith-based ideas. [Arguments “A” though “G” appear over woman’s head and are popped by pin-wielding hand].

When you start being honest with yourself about what you know and what you don’t know, you’re likely to realize that you’re in no position to be shouting the odds. And when you understand that it’s behavior that has the practical impact on our lives, you may realize that it’s not whether we believe in gods, but how we treat each other, that says the most about our character. If you attack, condemn, or use emotional blackmail on people because they don’t share your belief in one or more gods [Angry couple pictured shouting at startled woman: “Non-believers are human rubbish!” and “Join our religion of love and peace or go to hell!], you’re invited to consider what that says about you[magnifying glass appears over shouting couple] and how it squares with the values you claim to embrace.

[Pink cube appears on screen; opens up releasing the words “Omne ingnotum pro magnifico [“Everything unknown is believed to be magnificent”].