I get the feeling that he's in search of the logos. Vid related. See how he can't fathom what brought an end to the senseless slaughter, to the point that it brings him to tears. However he himself says it: Jesus.
There's another instance of this kind of seeking after the logos in one of his videos, but I can't remember exactly which. Pair that with his interview with Prager wherein he understands the futility of morality without God, yet holds to a Randian ethical system, as if not being able to put two and two together.
There are three obstacles to Stefan reaching the logos, as far as I can see:
1. His idol is Ayn Rand.
2. He has a naturalist worldview by default, not being familiar with theology or logic regarding theology.
3. He does not know much about Christianity.
In terms of addressing these issues:
1. He needs to let go of this idol. You cannot serve two masters. Understanding the limitations of Ayn Rand would be a great pebble in his foot:
i. Her hypocrisy - using government benefits.
ii. The futility of her ethical systems.
a. Understanding that a functional ethical system that is to be followed by rational men needs to be objective AND universal. Egotism is NOT universal and does not solve the conundrum of morality without God. It remains entirely her opinion of what a functional ethical system should be - because she is an equal in essence to those who would follow her ethical system, then it remains her opinion, and not truth.
b. The NAP is artificial and counter-nature. Again, there is no authority behind the NAP, it's simply a system that functions to create a "good" (from a Christian-derived worldview) ethical system. Without an anchor, one cannot justifiably reason this to someone else.
c. Stefan clearly believes in the concept of altruism. Rand believes that altruism has no place in her worldview.
d. A Christian worldview both fulfills the requirements of a reasonable ethical system (being both Objective and Universal) AND coincides with natural law in that it points out what bears bad fruit (e.g. homosexuality) and what bears good fruit, while at the same time recognizing that much of this is contrary to our nature, as we are fallen. Stefan seems to understand natural law and to even follow it, which is good.
2. He needs to do reading of Christian philosophers and theologians, as well as critics of naturalism. He appears to have insulated himself from these. For example - he has the presupposition that there does not exist the supernatural, therefore he completely bars himself from believing in God by default. Case in point: his biggest concern with Christianity is the impossible deeds and miracles of the Old Testament. However - this is a non-issue if there indeed is a God, because doing the supernatural to Him who stands above nature is no big deal. In the same manner, a piece of software has rules and restrictions that it cannot break - but because a programmer stands above his creation, he has the free will to break these conditions at his leisure. It's simple logic.
Is it possible to load two of every animal for weeks into a single vessel, keeping them all alive? No, that's preposterous. However, because this is the will of God, who is master over the rules pertaining to what is possible, this is logical, and indeed possible through God - all things are possible through Him. What is equally absurd is a world without God - that these rules are here for no reason, bringing themselves into creation from nothing for no reason, and sustaining themselves upon nothing. This is as much of an impossibility as Noah doing what he did without God.
3. Stefan regularly conflates cults with Christianity, the biggest offender being Mormonism. Additionally, he is usually has confounding comments in regards to Christianity when he talks about anything except very high level stuff. There is a clear ignorance here that would be solved by, again, reading Christian theologians as well as the Bible.