In order to understand how @KeithWoodsYT is wrong in his latest video, "Why Materialism Is Absurd," one simply has to replace the word "consciousness" with "cars." See, cars are an emergent property just like consciousness. They don't cause any sort of...

challenge to a materialistic worldview.

@KeithWoodsYT claims:

1. Consciousness is irreducible to particles and therefore creates a problem for materialism.

2. You'd need a God to explain the emergence of consciousness from matter.

3. Materialism leads to denial of truth.

Arguments 1 and 2 can easily be destroyed by simply replacing "consciousness" with "cars." Deprive a car of some of its atoms (say, the engine), and it's not a functional car anymore. Same thing goes for consciousness.

The fact that something complex cannot be separated into parts that keep the properties of the bigger ensemble is not a challenge at all to materialism.

Next, @KeithWoodsYT seems to focus on "the moment consciousness emerged from matter," claiming...

that the emergence of this new category must imply the existence of a God. A new category in the universe does not require a God. Take for instance the first car that was ever made. Before that, no atoms had ever been arranged into a car. Suddenly, to paraphrase @KeithWoodsYT, ..

a complete new "substance" had emerged.

@KeithWoodsYT claims without rationale that such new category demands some God. Of course it doesn't - because it is fallacious to assume that a new category of things cannot have been made of smaller things that pre-existed it.

Finally, @KeithWoodsYT in his 3rd argument claims that seeing our own minds as being made up of physical building blocks logically leads to denying that the products of such minds (such as mathematical truths) are true.

Again this is fallacious, because he has not demonstrated that the building blocks of our particular universe cannot be arranged properly into a truth-seeking machine, and indeed, there is no reason within materialism they couldn't.

In general, @KeithWoodsYT oscillates between two goalposts: the one in his title, where he claims he will demonstrate the absurdity of the view, and a strawman where he just wants to make the case that the idea that every other view is wrong is ridiculous. He succeeds at neither.