Venom Fang debates Rachael Slick on Christianity

Notable wayward child of Calvinist Matt Slick argues against objective reality:


  1. Can you please summarize the main ideas in the debate?
    I get that in the opening, Shawn says that there is an objective reality and that we shouldn’t limit ourselves to the 5 senses, whereas Rachel believes that perceptions of reality is subjective.

    1. On the CARM Christian Apologetics forum I made a thread that raises this issue but in an opposite way. Namely, whether one should follow inspiration and emotion when evaluating religious claims or should one try to follow an objective approach. If someone follows what inspires them, then they could accept miracle claims when an objective approach could tell them that there is no enough evidence for the claims.

      In Shawn’s debate with Rachel, in a way they take opposite positions than those in my thread, because Shawn (religious) is arguing for objectivity it seems, whereas Rachel seems to be saying that there is only subjectivity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s