𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
𝙒𝙝𝙮 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙨𝙢

I think about David Hume a lot.

Probably more than I should.

I suppose it’s because most atheists are appealing to his arguments whether they known it or not… so it’s important to be familiar with where all these ideas come from.

Anyways, I was thinking about David Hume and his famous argument against miracles a few days ago and a new thought occurred to me.

I was thinking about how Hume argued that we have no experience of miracles ever occurring, but we do have abundant experience of people being mistaken, lying, or misinterpreting events.

Therefore, he argued, it’s always more reasonable to believe that someone is wrong about witnessing a miracle than that a genuine suspension of the laws of nature has taken place.

I’ve responded to Hume’s argument against miracles elsewhere, but what struck me was the logic of it all… That logic, taken by itself, is sound.

“If we only see evidence of X and we have no evidence of Y, we should think X.”

As I reflected on this, I realized that this same principle, when applied consistently, actually leads straight to theism.

The more I thought about this, the clearer it became that this simple observation, rooted in the same principle Hume used against miracles, has profound implications.

If we only ever observe minds causing things, and we never see non-minds doing so, then the only rational inference is that the first cause of everything was also a mind.

What began as a passing thought has turned into what could become a significant argument for God. I’ve tried to write it out carefully and clearly here. I’ll warn you now that some parts are technical, but I’ve aimed to keep it accessible.

Let’s begin with the syllogism 🧵 Premise 1: A necessary being exists and initiated the causal sequence that is responsible for all of reality.

Premise 2: This necessary being either has intentionality or it does not.

Premise 3: If the necessary being has intentionality, then God exists. If it does not have intentionality, then God does not exist.

Premise 4: In all human experience, minds initiate causal sequences; non-minds do not.

Premise 5: Therefore, all evidence supports that the necessary being has intentionality.

Premise 6: If there is overwhelming evidence for one theory and zero evidence for the only other possible theory, it is rational to believe the first and irrational to believe the second.

Conclusion: Therefore, within the domain of causation, there is no evidence that supports atheism and overwhelming evidence that supports theism.

Charlie Kirk once said:
“there is a fine-tuning problem to our existence that warrants there is a God.”

Even Christopher Hitchens had to admit it’s one of the strongest arguments for theism.

But what is fine-tuning… and why does it disprove atheism? 🧵 Imagine getting into a car and turning on the radio.

You’re not surprised to find that music is playing.

At first you don’t think much of it, of course radios play music.

But then you look closer…

There are only two possible theories for life’s origin: blind chance or intentional design.

The problem for naturalists is that the more we learn about life, the more impossible their theory becomes.

But just how unlikely is it?

Here’s why life is 100% designed🧵 How Simple Can a Cell Be?

To determine how unlikely life is to arise without a mind, we must first ask “how simple can a cell be and still survive?”

In 2016, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute created JCVI-syn3.0, the simplest self-replicating cell ever made. They stripped away every gene that wasn’t absolutely necessary for survival.

Here’s what they found:
•The cell still needed 473 genes in total.

•438 of those genes coded for 438 distinct, functional proteins, each one a precision molecular engine built from amino acids.

•Every one of those proteins was essential for the cell to live, metabolize, and reproduce. Remove any of them, and the cell would die.

From this study we can safely say that 400 distinct functional proteins is the bare minimum for life.

So how easy is it to get these proteins?

𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐬 𝐃𝐨 𝐀𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐖𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠?
𝑾𝒉𝒚 𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑴𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑰𝒔 𝑵𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆

One of the most popular moral beliefs in the modern world, especially among atheists, is that morality is subjective.

What’s right or wrong, they say, isn’t written into the fabric of the universe.

There’s no objective standard, no divine law, no transcendent good.

Morality, in this view, is just a human invention, shaped by culture, emotion, and social contract.

What’s “right” in one culture might be “wrong” in another.

There are no objective moral truths, only preferences and local agreements between people.

That’s it.

This view is often called moral relativism or cultural relativism, and it’s easy to see why it appeals to people today.

It sounds tolerant. It avoids uncomfortable judgments.

It tells us we can all live our truth without forcing it on others.

But is that really what we believe?

Does this theory really capture our moral experience?

This question was formally asked and answered 80 years ago… After the Second World War, the world was horrified by the crimes committed by the Nazis. The systematic slaughter of six million Jews, the execution of political prisoners, the abuse of civilians, the inhumane experiments, they waged a total war waged on conscience itself. When the Allies won, they put the leaders of Nazi Germany on trial for crimes against humanity. These became known as the Nuremberg Trials.

Surprisingly, the Nazi leaders didn’t deny that they had done these things. In fact, many of them openly admitted to it. What they denied was that they had done anything wrong.

“We were only following orders.”
“We were acting according to the laws of our country.”
“You have your laws, and we have ours. Who are you to judge us?”

That was their defense.

In other words, they made the same argument that today’s moral subjectivists and relativists make. They claimed that morality is just a construct of society and law. And since Nazi Germany made these actions legal under their own system, they were not morally culpable. They weren’t “murderers.” They were patriots. Bureaucrats. Soldiers. Loyal Germans doing what was considered right in their culture.

And if morality is subjective and relative, they were right.

If morality really is subjective or culturally relative, then there is no ultimate moral standard we can appeal to. We can’t condemn the Holocaust. It might be emotionally offensive to us. It might be unpopular. But “wrong”?

No.

Every worldview has to face the problem of suffering.

But which one gives the best answer?

In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky takes it head on.

We might flinch.

But he doesn’t.

Here’s what he says about it🧵 The scene takes place in Russia during the late 1800s.

A woman comes to the monastery in tremendous grief.

She needs to speak to Elder Zosima, he is a holy man of God.

She’s just lost her fourth child.

He was only three years old…
She can’t stop thinking about him.

This is a pretty standard argument from atheists trying to defend materialism and explain consciousness.

But there are at least four major problems with this view.

Let’s walk through them… (make sure you read number 4)🧵

https://twitter.com/speedwatkins/status/1944021189279510941

1. It Begs the Question.

Ben argues that because every brain state has a complete physical cause, there’s no need for the mind. But this assumes that the brain is a closed system governed solely by physical causes… which is materialism.

But “materialism is true” is the very thing Ben needs to demonstrate.

Right now he’s not arguing for materialism. He’s assuming it.

That’s textbook question begging.

No God.
No soul.
No afterlife.

That’s what he believed.
Until… his heart stopped.

That’s when he experienced something he never believed in: Hell

This is the story of Howard Storm 🧵 Like most college professors today, Howard was a convinced atheist.

“I was a professor at Northern Kentucky University. I was the chairman of the art department. I was a hardcore atheist. I believed the physical world was all that existed. There was no soul, no afterlife, no God. Religion was for weak people.”

Is your mind just your brain?

Over the past century, serious philosophical arguments have exposed this view as incoherent.

These arguments are so strong that even many atheists have abandoned materialism.

Here are 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 of the most powerful, starting with zombies 🧟 🧵 1. The Zombie Argument

Imagine there’s a person exactly like you in every conceivable way. They walk like you, talk like you, and have a brain identical to yours down to the last atom.

But they have no inner experience.
No feelings.
No awareness.
No qualia.

They say “I’m in pain,” but they don’t actually feel pain.

They describe the color red, but never experience redness.

They act conscious, but there’s nothing it’s like to be them.

This is the concept of the philosophical zombie, a being physically identical to a conscious human, but completely devoid of consciousness.

David Chalmers uses this thought experiment to challenge materialism. He writes:

“It is conceivable that there be a creature physically identical to me, but without conscious experience. If so, then consciousness is not physical.”
(The Conscious Mind, 1996)

If such a zombie is logically possible, then consciousness cannot be identical to physical brain states. You could recreate the entire brain and still leave out the mind.

The zombie argument doesn’t claim zombies exist, it just claims they are possible in principle. And that’s enough.

Because if the mind were nothing but the brain, then any physical duplicate would necessarily have consciousness. The very fact that we can coherently imagine a zombie shows that consciousness must be something more.

The brain can explain behavior, but it cannot explain experience. And unless materialism can account for what it’s like to be you, it leaves the most essential part of you out of the picture.

𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲, 𝐎𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐲𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐬: 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬 The second law of thermodynamics states that in any natural process, the total entropy of a system tends to increase over time. In simpler terms, things fall apart. Systems move from order to disorder unless there is something actively working against that tendency. Usable energy is lost, and complexity breaks down. This is why living things die, machines rust, and buildings decay. The observation describes what appears to be an unavoidable reality of physical systems.

This presents a serious challenge for any worldview that seeks to explain the origin of life and complexity using only time, chance, and natural processes. If all matter tends toward disorder, how did something as orderly and complex as life arise from non-life? How did blind physical forces, without intention or intelligence, generate the astonishing information systems found in even the simplest cell?

When confronted with this, many atheists offer a quick reply: “The Earth is not a closed system. It gets energy from the sun. The second law doesn’t apply here.”

At first glance, that seems like a good answer. It’s true that Earth receives a massive amount of energy from the sun. But this response does not solve the problem. It actually misses the entire point.

The second law does not require that a system be perfectly closed in order to observe entropy increase. What it says is that, without a mechanism to harness and direct energy toward a goal, systems will naturally degrade over time. The availability of energy does not stop the law from applying. In fact, when that energy is undirected, it often accelerates disorder.

Energy alone is not the same as order. To make that distinction clear, consider a simple analogy.

Imagine a room filled with Lego bricks. Some are scattered randomly, and a few are arranged in a basic structure. Now imagine we turn on a bright light in the room so that it receives a steady supply of energy. We then leave the room sealed for 10 billion years.

What should we expect to find when we return?

Would we expect the Legos to have gradually assembled themselves into an enormous mansion? Would the energy from the light have created greater structure and complexity?

Of course not. We would expect the opposite. The orderly structures would collapse, the plastic would degrade, and everything would move toward greater disorder. The light adds energy, but it does not arrange the bricks. It doesn’t create information or impose structure. Without a mechanism to guide that energy toward an organized result, the natural outcome is decay.

In fact, what if we reversed the experiment and froze the Legos for 10 billion years? Would we expect more or less disorder, compared to the room receiving energy from the light source? Clearly, we would expect to see less entropy. The absence of energy actually helps preserve the current structure. This shows that adding energy often increases entropy, not the other way around. Raw energy without direction tends to accelerate disorder.

The same is true on Earth. Yes, the sun gives us energy. But that energy is not structured, intelligent, or purposeful. It does not contain instructions. Without a system already in place to receive, process, and direct that energy, the sun should be speeding up entropy, not reversing it.

To put the absurdity of the atheist response in perspective: it would be like walking along a beach, seeing a detailed sandcastle, and saying, “Well, the sun has been shining here for four billion years. That must be how the sandcastle formed.”

No one would believe that. We all intuitively know that structure and design require more than energy, they require intention, arrangement, and information. Energy might dry the sand, harden the surface, or create random movement, but it does not stack grains of sand into turrets and moats.

“Call me Ishmael.”

That line starts one of the strangest and most misunderstood books in American literature—Moby-Dick.

A tale of man’s fury, fate, and rebellion against… a Whale?

Or is there more beneath the surface?

A thread on the true meaning of Melville’s masterpiece🧵 The story begins with Ishmael, a drifter and wanderer.

He’s depressed.
He needs purpose.

So he goes to sea—not for glory, but for healing.

“Whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul… then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.”t

As an atheist, I dismissed everything about Christianity as nonsense.

But since becoming a Christian, I’m constantly amazed at how wise its teachings are.

How did I miss this?

Here are 𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐞 lessons Christianity teaches that can change your life🧵 Lesson One: Forgive

This one is tough, we all have pride and want to harbor resentment, but we must forgive.

Not just when they deserve it.

Not just when it’s easy.

Forgiveness releases you from bitterness and resentment and frees you to move forward in life.

Is your mind JUST your brain?

Or is there something more, something that can exist even apart from your body?

400 years ago, René Descartes gave a thought experiment about this.

And to this day, no one has solved it 🧠🧵 Meet René Descartes, a 17th-century French philosopher often called the father of modern philosophy.

In his time, most people simply assumed that the mind and body were one thing.

Until Descartes asked a radical question:

A Christian DM’d me asking how I respond to atheists when they say you “can’t prove a negative.”

So, can you prove a negative? Yes.

Here are five examples of how you can “prove” a negative: 🧵 1. You can prove a negative in mathematics.

For example, take the claim, “There is no even prime number greater than two.” That’s a negative claim. And it’s provable: by definition, any even number greater than two will be divisible by numbers other than one and itself, so it cannot be prime. Therefore, the only even prime is two, and none greater than two exists. Negative proven.

Antony Flew was one of the most influential atheist philosophers of the 20th century.

He debated C.S. Lewis and shaped modern unbelief.

Then, late in life, he shocked the world:

He changed his mind.

Here’s how one of atheism’s greatest champions became a theist 🧵 Antony Flew was THE atheist philosopher for decades: he authored “Theology and Falsification,” one of the most widely reprinted philosophical essays of the 20th century.

He famously said: “We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”

So how did it lead to God? This is his story…

It was called the “missing link.”

Scientists praised it.
Textbooks taught it.
Museums displayed it.

But it was a total fraud.

Here’s how one hoax fooled the world for 40 years 🧵 It’s called the Piltdown Man.

For decades, textbooks and museums presented Piltdown Man as the missing link between apes and humans.

It was “discovered” in 1912 and used to support Darwin’s theory.

Gen Z was supposed to be the most progressive, godless generation ever.

But something’s happening… they’re turning back to God.

Let’s talk about the quiet Christian revolution happening right now🧵 For years, the pattern was simple:

Every generation would be more liberal, more secular, more “affirming.”

Gen Z was raised on TikTok, drag queens, hedonism and deconstruction.

They were told: “Be your truth.”

But many aren’t buying it anymore…

As a child, atheist historian Tom Holland was fascinated with ancient civilizations like Rome, Greece, and Persia.

But the more he studied them, the more alien they became.

Why were they so different from us?

This is what he discovered (thread)🧵 The ancient world was a very different place—it was brutal.

Power and dominance were everything.

Mercy was weakness. Pity was shameful.

There was no such thing as human rights, equality, or universal dignity.

Many unbelievers say you shouldn’t believe in God without evidence or proof.

But is that even true?

Alvin Plantinga, one of the most respected Christian philosophers alive, says “no,” belief in God is properly basic.

But what does that mean? A thread🧵 Some beliefs are foundational. You don’t reason TO them. You simply know they are so.

For example:
•You believe the world is real
•Your memories are mostly accurate
•That other people have minds

You believe these things are true even though you can’t prove them.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐲
𝑾𝒉𝒚 𝑨𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒔𝒎 𝑪𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝑩𝒆 𝑻𝒓𝒖𝒆

I used to believe that atheism couldn’t be refuted.

But then I discovered the following…

This argument is why I left atheism🧵 SECTION 1: Introduction

The Argument from Rational Certainty is a transcendental argument for the existence of God. It begins with a basic observation—not about the physical world, but about our rational experience: we possess rational certainty. From that single fact, it shows that such certainty requires an all-knowing mind to ground it. Any worldview that denies the existence of such a mind, including atheism, collapses into contradiction.

This argument is structured deductively. If each premise is true, the conclusion follows necessarily. The argument is as follows:

•Premise 1: Rational certainty exists.
•Premise 2: Rational certainty requires a necessary precondition: an all-knowing mind.
•Premise 3: Any worldview that denies this necessary precondition cannot account for rational certainty without contradiction.
•Premise 4: Atheism is a worldview that denies the existence of such a mind.
•Premise 5: Therefore, atheism entails a contradiction: it depends on rational certainty while denying the precondition that makes rational certainty possible.
•Premise 6: A worldview that entails contradiction cannot be true.
•Conclusion: Therefore, atheism cannot be true and is necessarily false.

The argument is structured as follows:
-Section 1 introduces the argument and provides a brief overview.
-Section 2 provides a detailed justification for each premise.
-Section 3 defines the key terms used in the argument.
-Section 4 responds to common objections and misunderstandings.

Now let’s begin…

We still live in the shadow of the Enlightenment.

Propaganda has trained us to think of it as a triumph—but what if I told you it was a complete failure?

Here’s the truth about the Enlightenment 🧵 Before the Enlightenment, the Western world believed truth was revealed, not invented.

God created the world.

Reason helped us understand it.

But truth began with something above man, not inside man.

Co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, was a lifelong philosopher and skeptic.

But recently, he became a Christian.

If you’ve ever wondered how a brilliant mind can come to embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ, keep reading.

This is his journey🧵 Sanger was raised in a conservative Lutheran household, with his father
an elder in the church.

But from early on, he was drawn to deep, difficult questions.

As a child, he asked things like, “If we need God to explain everything, why don’t we need something to explain God?”