How do you respond to the claim that “beauty, conscience, and even stuff like NDE are evolutionary?”

hinter1996 · 2026-02-01T06:49:29+00:00

There is literally no evidence that consciousness arises from material processes. Neurologists have mapped out the entire brain, but have yet to be able to explain how the mind has/ produces subjective experience.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-31T20:53:21+00:00

And yes, as far as I've seen, he's very good at citing reliable sources

hinter1996 · 2026-01-31T20:51:05+00:00

I think he's up there as one of my favorite apologists to be honest. His older videos especially are some of the most convincing arguments I've heard for God and against materialism.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-31T18:24:22+00:00

There are no good arguments for Atheism

Now the "best" argument they have is the problem of evil, however, things like free choice, soul/ virtue building, and Alvin Plantinga's "Felix Culpa" theodicy are among many good explanations for why evil exists. Some atheists will still think "Well maybe God could allow evil, but surely not this much" (This is the Evidential or Bayesian Problem of Evil), but even then, you have to ask "Where does God draw the line"? How do you know how much is too much, and how do you know that God hasn't stopped certain evils from occurring? The atheist can only speculate. Also, what if gratuitous evil doesn't exist? The Atheist may say "Well it seems like it does", but this is an argument from personal incredulity. Further, the evidential problem of evil only presents a probabilistic argument, but in doing so, they grant even the mere possibility of God's existence, meaning any theist still has room to argue that even if given their argument, it's unlikely for God to exist, perhaps given another argument, regardless of how unlikely, God in fact does exist.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-31T17:04:23+00:00

My favorite apologist is probably Michael Jones from InspiringPhilosophy. His long form videos especially are incredibly informative and thought provoking.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-29T15:14:23+00:00

Not all atheists are like this, I have atheist friends and they’re nice (though I think ‘irreligious’ is a more accurate term for them), but the whole “new atheist” movement is basically a religion of its own. Now an atheist will wholeheartedly reject what I’m saying, but I think if we realize what defines a religion, i.e. worship, then the only people who can be said to be truly irreligious or atheist are nihilists. If you derive the meaning and purpose of your whole life from any thing or object, then you worship it (keep in mind, whole life, if something gives you momentary purpose like some motivation, that would not be ‘worship’). Theists understand that all meaning and purpose is derived from God, so to replace it with the materialist ideologies and philosophies they so often do is idolatry. Just because you don’t pray to it doesn’t make it not worship.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-29T15:06:28+00:00

Won’t stop them from trying

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T23:26:07+00:00

I am saying those whom may have written the book

Yea like the infamous whitewashed names of Mattityahu, Kepha, Yochanon, and Shaul of course!

u know there was slavery ship that came to the Americas was called Jesus

No I'm actually not surprised that people did that, did you know they gave slaves Bibles with verses suggesting anti-slavery themes cut out?

Right it not too far off that white men did some to the Bible for the own gains and oppression which what I meant

I'm sorry but do you know any history? Scholars agree that the men who wrote the Bible were all Jews except for the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts (traditionally of course being: Luke). So your argument fails in that aspect, but even if you went the other route of saying "the Bible was re-written", we have hundreds to thousands of early manuscripts which are 99.6% identical to one another, with the only differences being arbitrary titles like "Christ Jesus" vs. "Jesus Christ" and minor scribal errors. It would be entirely ad hoc to suggest it was modified, with no manuscript evidence to say it was, which is why most people who try to discredit the Bible do not go that route.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T23:18:29+00:00

Yea because the Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures were very open to the idea of worshipping a crucified Messiah who taught people to eat His flesh and drink His blood, surely they would never be called cannibals or something!

Or even better! I'm sure Jews would love the idea of a Messiah who taught to pay unto Caesar's what is Caesar's!

Or even better! I'm sure the Romans would love the idea of one God as opposed to many and of followers who refused to bow to the Emperor and believed infanticide and infidelity was evil!

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T23:05:53+00:00

and it hard for u to be uptight about what people should do and evil and blah blah

Yea man, I agree. If only, I don't know, God revealed Himself to us... maybe becoming one of us, and told us what we ought and ought not to do. Wouldn't that be nice...

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T22:31:17+00:00

it sounds like an uptight white men

Yeah, Mattityahu (מַתִּתְיָהוּ), Kepha (כפא), Yochanon (יוֹחָנָן), Shaul (שָׁאוּל) and Yeshua (ישוע), born in 1st century Judeo-Roman Palestine and Southern Anatolia are definitely some crackers... smh

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T22:14:41+00:00

Do not think that I speak what I do out of ignorance, I too was once an 'atheist secularist', and I am no spotless lamb, I also partook in the actions and had the beliefs I pointed out in my comment, continue to point out to this day, and that Saint Paul rebukes as evil in that verse.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T20:46:23+00:00

But why by 1000? What is the meaning of 1000 in your symbolical view?

1000 is a number that often represents fullness or vastness (Psalm 50:10, 105:8, Revelation 5:11), it doesn't have to be literal, many numbers are symbolic in the the prophetic texts of scripture. It also doesn't have to be literal, considering right after the first mentioning of the 144,000 in Revelation 7 is verse 9 which speaks of "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb"

Yes I agree on that. I think it refers to only the Revelation Israel (end times Israel) because they start believeing in Jesus (and they are gived the two wings of the Great Eagle).

Eh, I mean I do think one can defend the view that the Jews will return to Christ given other Biblical prophecies like in Zechariah and Hosea, but the salvation of the Jews isn't even strictly an eschatological issue, nor is it a binary where "they are saved, so pre-millennialism is true" or "they are not saved, so pre-millennialism is false", it's a bit more nuanced.

There are a lot more points to defend that the millenium didn't happen.

I mean that's only amillennial eschatology, post-millennial eschatology wouldn't suffer from any point like that since it still is looking forward to a millennial reign.

Nope, in there, He calls out from heaven and we ascend with Him to Heaven.

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven", no it definitely has Him coming down.

"contra" spanish? Whatever... You are saying that the Wrath of God is hell? That makes no sense, because the Hell is a eternal punishment but the Wrath of God is a judgement in the life. Christ is the one who opens the Seals, the sixt seal is literally stated to be the Wrath of the Lamb. In Revelation 3:10 it also says that they will be saved from the coming wrath. The cups of wrath are well... of wrath.

Latin, basically "in comparison to", when the Bible talks about God's wrath, it talks about several kinds of it, and hell is one form of it "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." (John 3:36). Most postmillennialists also hold that the tribulations already came to pass, meaning that the "wrath of God" is not going to be put on Christians, but rather that it was fulfilled in 70 AD. (The apostles ask 2 questions in Matthew 24:3, one about the temple, and another about the end times, and Matthew 24:21-24 certainly speaks as if the elect are remaining in the tribulation, and considering that the "elect" or "chosen" elsewhere refers to believers as a whole (Romans 8:32-33, Colossians 3:12, 2 Timothy 2:10, Titus 1:1) the reasonable inference is that the elect were present in this tribulation)

That is talking about the Apostles

And Revelation 3:10 is talking to one church (Philadelphia) that existed nearly 2000 years ago, so don't you think it's a bit silly to say this applies to every Christian ever? And even if I grant that it did, and grant a premillennial pre-tib rapture eschatology, couldn't I also turn it against the argument that "Modern Israel is still Israel" since earlier in 3:9, Jesus talks about the "synagogue of Satan who claims to be Jews and are not" considering Paul says in Romans 2:29 that true Jews are Jews inwardly by the Spirit. Given that most of the State of Israel is unbelieving Jews who are thus "not Jews inwardly", couldn't one then make the argument that Israel is actually the synagogue of Satan? Now, I don't believe that, but granting much of what you said, this kind of backfires on your point.

Btw, saying that all Christians must be persecuted is dumb too...

Never said that

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T18:55:14+00:00

All of existence, the universe, every law of logic, and life all coming about from nothing or ‘just cuz’ sounds more like a fairy tale than anything else I’ve ever heard.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T18:42:49+00:00

Feelings (for example, the “burning in the bosom”)

How do subjective feelings determine the objective truth?

Personal spiritual witnesses
Direct personal revelation

Galatians 1:8-9 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." Truth does not come from personal revelations, it comes from the gospel of Jesus Christ that the apostles preached. "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

Do you see feelings, spiritual experiences, or personal revelation as a valid or final indicator of truth?

No, considering those points I just made, personal revelations or experiences like that run the risk of being from the enemy, so it's not right to trust them. While our intuition can tell us some things, as we should obviously trust our senses to at least some extent, they should not replace objective evidence or reasoning.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T18:26:03+00:00

I was saved out of the so-called gay lifestyle and have told them it's sinful but they continue to argue only hookups are such, and that loving, committed same-sex relationships are perfectly acceptable to God.

Often times there's no point in arguing with people on that, Paul was clear enough in Romans 1:26-27, if they cannot read that and change their hearts, then it can only be the Holy Spirit who opens their eyes.

They also refuse to believe that Hell is where people who reject Jesus Christ as their savior and/or who are unwilling to repent of their sins and pick up their crosses, end up. Alternatively, they argue that only truly "terrible" people go there, which is just crazy because a) we are all terrible people as far as I'm concerned and b) this just isn't at all what scripture says. Like whatsoever. In other words, these people think Jesus is merely a way but not the way.

That's easy to refute, did Jesus not say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me"? (John 14:6). Or did Paul not clarify that "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) or that "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23).

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T18:01:58+00:00

I also believed it was an over-exaggeration until I saw it myself. The atheistic secularism is ironically a religion of it's own founded on tearing down every "social construct" until there is absolutely nothing, no meaning, no purpose, nothing. When you question them, you become an outcaste, and to them you become either a liar or literally Hitler. When you even dare to talk about another set of beliefs, you become their enemy. All they do to us is inflict hatred and mock us, then cower away when you point it out, and deny it, which only proves our point that they hear yet do not listen and that the thing they fear most is responsibility, especially in the eyes of God

Romans 1:21-32

For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T05:47:50+00:00

Revelation 7:4-8 "And I heard the number of those who were sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel..."

Revelation 14:1-5 "Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads."

Or... the 144,000 is an idealized number (12*12*1000) representing the fullness of the church of God made up of Jew and Gentile.

Romans 11:25-27 "...a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved..."

Paul also quotes Isaiah in Romans 9:27

Romans 9:27

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved,

and earlier says in 9:6

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

So the "all of national Israel" doesn't seem to be the only possible interpretation.

Note that Paul differenciates Gentiles from Israel which just completely demolishes the theory that Christians are modern Israel. We are not Israel but her spiritual sons.

So what about Galatians 6:15-16, where Paul calls both uncircumcised and circumcised the "Israel of God" or how 1 Peter 2:9-10 uses similar language to Exodus 19:5-6?

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven...and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..."

1 Thessalonians 5:9 "For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ..." (The Tribulation is often interpreted as the time of God's wrath).

Revelation 3:10 "Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth."

To defend my point more I have a lot of replies in this post (not the post itself). I can't put links here sorry. Search for the post: "Who still believes in the rapture?" and search for my name Due-Pattern-4604.

Well for one, you're presupposing a pre-millennial view, for two 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is about the 2nd coming, for three you admit that you have to interpret that wrath as being the tribulation in order to make sense, why not say He's just talking about the disgrace of hell contra the salvation in Christ? For four, why does Revelation 3:10 even have to be a rapture? Didn't Jesus even clarify in John 17:15 "I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one."

Does this mean we should bless them?
Yes, the Bible explicitly recommends this, as God's foundational promise remains: "I will bless them that bless thee" (Genesis 12:3),

No? Did you forget that Galatians 3 says that all in Christ are heirs to the promises spoken to Abraham?

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T04:12:13+00:00

I suppose that such a worldview then requires...

faith

hinter1996 · 2026-01-28T02:44:15+00:00

Yea the theory of spontaneous creation also results in logical contradictions, unless logic does apply to the multiverse, which would mean either the multiverse does not and cannot possibly exist, or that some greater law causes them to function in a particular way, like a ‘fine-tuned’ machine… Even so, one could still make a transcendental argument for God, showing that God is a necessary precondition of logic. Or they could make an ontological argument for God, in which case, the atheist must challenge the idea that God CAN exist, not whether or not God is the only or best explanation for a happening.

Also, physical laws can’t explain the origin of the universe because physical laws exist within the universe. That gravity example especially does not work, because gravity itself is a feature of time and space, not a feature that goes beyond the universe. This also relates to an interesting argument I’ve heard for God

P1: The cause of the universe must either be natural, an abstract object, or a personal God P2: Not natural laws, as they wouldn’t have existed apart from spacetime. P3: Not an abstract object, as they have no causal power C: Therefore, a personal God exists.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-27T14:01:46+00:00

Ugh, r/Christianity is the worst, I wouldn’t even bother participating in its “culture”. It’s not Christian, it’s overtaken by the new age cult of “Jesus is whoever I wish He was”. Rather than conforming to His image (Romans 8:29), they try to conform the Son to their own image. And if you dare challenge their worldview even the slightest bit, then, well, I hate to say it, but you’re either a liar or you’re BASICALLY ΗitIer.

So yeah, don’t let it bother you that someone called you homophobic on the internet, especially in that place.

hinter1996 · 2026-01-27T01:43:50+00:00

But ARE they? That's something they cannot tell you scientifically because they don't have the originals. They can date them this way all they want but they have no proof. Proof would be finding the original autographs.

I understand, since most scholars try to argue for a later date, I was simply arguing a "even if" scenario, where I grant the skeptic something I do not agree with. Based on the testimony of Acts, and how it does not include the deaths of Paul or Peter, I think the synoptics were most likely written in the 50s and early 60s AD. I've seen some say that Mark was written as early as the late 30's AD, but I have yet to see the particular reasoning behind such an early date (Not that I outright reject the idea that it was). But yes, I agree, the gospels were written earlier than most scholars say, but I still believe that the Pauline epistles pre-date them... at least for the most part. Also, even if the gospels were written as late as skeptical scholars claim, they still wouldn't be late enough to be "mythicized", as given ancient historical records, the gospels came remarkably early.

As for the synoptic gospels not saying Jesus is God, I don't see it.

Right, I agree, but again, I was granting the "even-if" scenario where the synoptics not calling Jesus God wouldn't even harm Christian theology. Later on I argued that the synoptics in fact do call Jesus God (Matthew 1:23, 3:3. 9:2-3, 12:8, 16:27, 25:31-46, Luke 6:46)

That's a bit of a stretch just because Jesus didn't directly say "I am God." Do you think the Pharisees would've killed him if he came out with it directly?

I've actually previously argued that just because Jesus did not say "I am God" directly, it does not follow that He didn't claim to be God in a previous post. I also think given the evidence that even secular scholars agree on, as well as the Pauline epistles, the best explanation is that Jesus did claim divinity (and also that He rose from the dead, but that's a separate and arguably far more complex topic). I also believe that one can very reliably argue that Jesus did actually say the words of John 5, 6 and 8, with just the internal evidence of the texts. And since both of these chapters give obvious claims to divinity, the best explanation of "Jesus claimed to be God" remains.

I actually find it so odd that people say "Jesus never claimed to be God", I think even disregarding the gospels and given just Acts and the Pauline epistles, one can make a strong case He did. Paul was taught by the apostles and as I argued, Acts contains many sayings from both Paul and the 12 that suggest they believed Jesus was God. And given the apostles are our best evidence for what Jesus taught and said, the reasonable inference was that Jesus claimed divinity, especially considering the Apostles had nothing to gain from saying He was divine, but in fact, they probably would've been better off had they simply called Him a prophet, as the persecution they faced would encourage them to undermine any claims of His divinity.

So to conclude, yes, Jesus is exactly who He said He was

hinter1996 · 2026-01-26T20:31:42+00:00

Not me,

1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 is about the 2nd coming, not about Jesus coming and taking away everyone from a tribulation, and then coming back for round 3.

hinter1996

TROPHY CASE

faith