Wait, Christians DO shoulder the burden of proof...?

On the last video I made about the burden of proof, I got some positive feedback, and then I got some negative feedback.

Some folks took issue with what I said in the video, particularly when I said this. Think of it like this, okay?

If presumption represents the status quo, what is the status quo when it comes to belief in the existence of God?

Think about that. The data points to the vast majority of people all over the world believe in God.

As a matter of fact, the number of atheists in this country specifically is dramatically low compared to Bible -believing

Christians. So now, let's say two people agree to debate the existence of God. Are we just supposed to place presumption on the side of believers in God?

Because that does represent the status quo, does it not? So what happened here? Was I just running my mouth off?

Are those who challenged me on the right track? Today, I'm reacting to the comments section and maybe going a little bit deeper into the discussion of the burden of proof.

So grab yourself a hot cup of joe, because here we go. Thanks for joining me.

My name is Nate, and you're watching a video from a Christian ministry called Wise Disciple. Now, one of the things that I've done in my sordid past is teach debate at the high school level.

So that's where these videos are coming from. If you have not seen the first video, or if you need to refresh on what

I said, go back and watch Do Christian Shoulder the Burden of Proof, and then join me back here. So like I said,

I'm reacting to the comments and challenges with regard to the burden of proof. So let's get right into it. Lee says,

I don't have any background in debate. So it's exciting to see some insight into the nuts and bolts of debate.

So glad I found your channel. Thank you so much, Lee. I'm glad you found the channel too. I hope it blesses you and gets you thinking critically.

Introverted Christian says, in the case of formal debates and the legal system, it seems to me that the burden of proof ought to be a matter of stipulation.

I think we could end all of these endless arguments over burden of proof if we just stipulated who has what burden of proof as part of the negotiations over the format of the debate.

Thank you so much for saying this, IC. Can I call you IC? I started to make two points at the end of the last video, and then, as those of you like me who are in your 40s can attest to,

I forgot what I was going to say. I forgot to complete the thought. Because the first point

I made was, if we're going to try and bring the burden of proof to bear in apologetics debates, well, then there's a couple of quick and easy ways to do it.

The first way is just to title the resolutions more clearly so that it's obvious that whoever takes the affirmative position bears the burden.

And the example I used was changing the resolution, does God exist, to something more like the

God of the Bible exists. That way, the affirmative team can recognize that they bear the burden when they start making their case.

But, the second way to clearly identify who has the burden of proof is, both opponents just agree at the outset who has the burden of proof.

Much in the same way that they would come to an agreement about, like, the resolution itself, you know, the way that it should be properly worded, they can come to an agreement about who shoulders the burden of proof.

So this is what you're saying, IC, about stipulating this as part of the negotiations, and I say, bingo!

I think that's a great idea if we're going to try to be more formal and utilize the burden of proof in these kinds of debates than just stipulate it before the debate begins.

So, great observation, IC. Thank you very much. Appreciate you. Kyle Smith says, As an atheist,

I appreciate this video. I've seen too many people on both sides fail to grasp this idea.

Kyle, thank you so much. You know what? I really do treasure these kinds of comments because atheists like you,

Kyle, are very few and far between. Alright? At least in my experience. Especially on social media and, like,

YouTube. So, thank you so much. You and I might draw different conclusions at the end of the day, but at least we can agree on the process to drawing those conclusions.

Appreciate you, Kyle. Let's go to GospelToTheGeekCH says,

All this talk of burdens. I'm just glad Jesus took mine away. Love it.

Love the dad jokes. Did someone say burden? Wouldn't know anything about that since Jesus took all my burdens away.

Sip, sip, sip. Hashtag dad life. Hashtag nobody's laughing. Christoph says,

In a formal debate, the affirmative side shoulders the burden of proof. In real life, we should all try and understand why we believe what we believe and give good reasons for it.

Thank you, Christoph. There are a lot of comments here that agree with what you're saying. So, thank you for that. I think what this conversation is revealing is the underlying philosophy of debate.

In other words, nobody just comes together and says, Let's debate, as if it's just that simple, you know.

Well, I'll just say a few things, and then you'll say some things back, and that's a debate. Easy. No, there's more going on, like underneath the surface.

There are philosophies of debate that undergird the activity of debate, such that two people can find themselves on the debate stage, so to speak, but be coming at each other from completely different philosophies of debate.

There's a really good example of this. I think, um, who's the guy? Come on, 40 -year -old brain.

Mike Winger versus Matt Dillahunty. That debate showcases what I'm talking about rather clearly. Mike came in probably with the philosophy of debate that's similar to yours,

Christoph. Mike's like, look, I'm going to make some arguments, but Matt needs to make his own arguments, and that's a debate.

This is what is similar to what's called a counterplan in debate. This is where the negative side provides its own answer to the resolution, and it looks like that's what

Mike wanted. Matt, on the other hand, came into the debate thinking, well, I don't need to make any kind of arguments because Mike shoulders basically all the burdens in this debate, and the end result of this is a huge wasted opportunity to have significant clash.

Look, if you're watching this video and you're an atheist or you're an agnostic or you're a believer in God, in the supernatural, you need to answer this question for yourself.

What is the goal of debate? Or how about this? I'll say the same thing using different words. What is my philosophy of debate?

Especially non -policy style debates like apologetics debates. Is debate singularly about determining whether a specific resolution can be affirmed?

Or is debate more even -handed than that, where it's more about investigating both sides of a resolution, where both opponents make their own case in order to determine which case defeats the other?

You know, maybe this helps if you think of it like this, Christoph. Imagine a big mountain with some people at the top and some people at the bottom.

Formal debates put the affirmative team at the base of the mountain, and they have to roll a heavy stone up the mountain to get to the very top.

That's burden of proof. And while they're rolling this heavy stone up the mountain, they have to talk out loud about the best path to take so that this stone can successfully get to the very top of the mountain.

And so they'll be saying things like, you know, we should make a left at this tree, and then we should go straight to avoid this ditch over here, stuff like that.

The negative team in a formal debate, they're already at the top of the mountain because they have presumption.

And they're watching the affirmative team try to roll this heavy stone, this burden of proof, up the mountain.

And the negative team is like shouting down, you know, and challenging the affirmative's process to get up this hill, to get up this mountain.

You know, they'll say things like, well, that path's not going to work. You know, that path leads to a dead end. You'll never make it up to the top of this mountain.

Okay, does that make sense? And if the affirmative succeeds in getting to the top of the mountain, the

AF overcomes the burden of proof and wins the debate. Okay, but that's the first philosophy of debate.

Here's another one. Think about this one. This is the more even -handed kind. You have the mountain, right? But now, instead of the affirmative being on the ground and the negative being on the top of the mountain, now both teams start out at the base of the mountain.

They're just on either side of the mountain. And now both teams have to travel the distance and roll their own heavy stones up the hill to get to the top.

That means that both teams have work to do. They just can't assume presumption because in this kind of debate, there is no presumption.

And so both teams have to do the same kind of work. They have to adhere to the same rigor of argumentation to get to the top and win.

And so that's the thing. You have to think, am I the kind of person that wants debate to be the first mountaintop scenario where the

AF is on the bottom, they're at the base of the mountain, and the neg is at the very top? Or do I want debate to be both sides at the base rolling up their own stones to get to the top of the mountain?

And look, I'll be transparent with you, Christoph. I think both scenarios, both philosophies of debate are absolutely important to serve an important purpose because I think both philosophies of debating help folks to think critically about what is true.

They just do it in different ways. But I will say this. If we're going to say that debate should always be about the affirmative shouldering the burden,

I think it's perfectly acceptable for nonbelievers to take the AF in some debates. That materialists who advocate for a materialist explanation for metaphysical debates, they should shoulder the burden just as much as the person who says there is a spiritual realm where God exists.

As a matter of fact, I'd like to see, actually, an even split of debates where sometimes believers take the

AF and sometimes nonbelievers take the AF. And I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

There is no downside to these kinds of debates, in my opinion. Christoph, thanks for the comment. Daniel Kiryanko says, the idea that a belief in God is the status quo is interesting but fundamentally flawed.

You've just shifted the goalposts, not actually solved the problem. Okay, Daniel, hold on for a second.

When did I say that belief in God should be the status quo? When did I say that? Were you paying attention,

Daniel? That's not what I said. I actually said the opposite. So be careful to really listen to what

I'm saying here, Daniel. I suspect that a lot of atheists, and I don't know if this applies to you or not, Daniel, okay, but a lot of atheists, they'll see videos that I'm making, like the previous video.

They'll look at the thumbnail, and they'll think to themselves immediately, oh, this Christian's going to tell me the burden of proof?

Let's see what kind of nonsense this idiot is going to say. And then they click the video already, growling like a caged tiger ready to pounce.

So if that's your attitude coming into a video, it's like, you know, you got your fingers, they're just ready to pounce.

You know, you got them ready. They're poised. They're ready to go. And the first thing that I say, don't do that. Stay open -minded.

People like this, they're like my 10 -year -old who refuses to eat anything other than chicken nuggets and oatmeal because he's already convinced himself in his own mind that everything else is disgusting.

Daniel also says this, and there is generally no disagreement about the concepts of objective reality.

Daniel, I think that's completely wrong. Even on the side of materialism with regard to, like, the scientific community, there is disagreement about how objective reality works.

So if what you're saying is, well, there is no disagreement about, like, the origin of objective reality, I mean, maybe we can talk about that, but the concepts of objective reality have no uniform agreement.

Thanks for the comment, Daniel. Jason Wolf says, is that OJ story real?

It is absolutely real. Here's the deal, Jason. God has allowed me to live an interesting life, okay?

Born in the late 70s, grew up in the 80s and early 90s. Maybe that's a video for another time.

But if you can imagine, I've had lots of different kinds of experiences, especially growing up in Las Vegas.

I've seen lots of things that I probably should not have seen, and one of them is locking eyes with OJ Simpson coming out of the same haircut place

I go to get my haircut. Anthony Monge. Monge? Mong? Sorry, Anthony.

He says, this is a good video. However, your data on the number of people that believe in God is flawed.

Which God are we discussing? Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and on and on. You cannot lump them all together.

There are also non -theistic religions not discussed, i .e., Buddhism. I like this topic, but the facts have to be spot on or your credibility decreases.

Anthony, there's always a guy. For every single occasion, there's always a guy, Anthony. And today, you are that guy.

I had a friend who always corrected me. Even when the details of the correction did not fundamentally change the overall argument or the overall point.

I would even go outside. This is how bad it was. I would literally walk outside and I would say, wow, what a nice sunny day today.

And my friend would say, well, actually, there are a few clouds in the sky. Do you have a friend like this?

Does anybody... Do you have a friend like this? If you're thinking to yourself, I don't have a friend like this, maybe it's because you're that friend. Here's the deal,

Anthony. My overall point is that non -believers with regard to the subject of the supernatural and with regard to the existence of any

God are largely outnumbered by those who do believe in those concepts.

Now, while I'm shooting from the hip, in a 10 -minute video, and I decide to say the word

God as a stand -in for what religions mean when they refer to the supernatural being or beings that they worship, that does not undercut the point that I'm trying to make about the status quo, particularly when it comes to the more narrow point that I specifically made about the contrast between atheists and Bible -believing

Christians in this country. So everyone can now go fact -check me, okay? But the bottom line is the difference between being that guy and not being that guy,

Anthony, is charity. As you can see, I'm not presenting a prima facie case in a debate. I'm having a cup of coffee and I'm shooting from the hip.

And my language is going to reflect that. And I don't have a problem with that. On the other hand, if anyone was confused by my choice of the word

God in the previous video, well, Anthony has given us all the opportunity for clarification. So thank you, Anthony.

I've got time for a couple more comments here. Let's go to Ray Cruz.

Ray says, Hey Nate, can you recommend any books specifically related to debate and debate theory? Thanks and God bless.

Boy, Ray, I've got a bit of an issue. I don't like... It's not the first time

I've been asked this question and I really appreciate the question. I think it's a really good one. I just... I don't like the books on debate and debate theory that currently are out there.

So, I mean, I think there's definitely room for someone to come in and write some more compelling page -turners with regard to debate.

Because here's the thing. Debate, at the end of the day, should be fun. All right? We should truly enjoy the venture of discovering what is true through dialectical exercises.

And so, you know, books about debate should also be fun. That's all I'm saying. That's my opinion. All right?

Probably the closest book along those lines... I think I have it. It's a book called Everyday Debate and Discussion by Shelly Johnson.

All right? Check that book out, Ray. I think it's probably more of a page -turner than the others in the general offering.

I'm always on the lookout for these kinds of things, so if I see something better, I'll let you know, Ray. All right, let's do one more because somebody is literally vacuuming outside my office.

Outside the building. That's fun. That'll pick up right on the microphone. Thank you. Let's do one more.

Let's go to... ShanTheMan99.

Did your mother give you that name? ShanTheMan99. Okay, let's see. I get your points, and I agree that if you want more formal debates, then they should change the names or the titles, but it's quite obvious that the status quo of the debate of God's existence is that he doesn't, just like every other concept that we haven't proven before.

How is that obvious, ShanTheMan? By what criteria do you make this kind of claim? See, what

I was doing in the last video was I was talking about the issue with ascribing presumption, and I didn't talk about this, but maybe it will help.

You have to understand there are two types of presumption in debate. There's what's called artificial presumption, and then there's what's called natural presumption.

Artificial presumption is what we see in more formal debates, where presumption is always ascribed to the negative team because the negative typically stands in opposition to the resolution.

So you take the resolution I was tooling around with last video. The United States should adopt communism as its official form of government.

Artificial presumption in a formal debate says, well, the negative side has presumption, and the affirmative team shoulders the burden of proof.

Okay, great, no problem. But wait a sec. What if the resolution is switched around? What if it says something like, well, the

United States should not adopt communism as its form of government? Well, now, artificial presumption still favors the negative team, and now, all of a sudden, the status quo appears to be that we should adopt communism, and the burden of proof is on making a case that we should not.

So you see how the debates can quickly change if we utilize artificial presumption, and that's why some folks in the literature have argued that in non -policy debates, we shouldn't rely on artificial presumption.

We should rely on natural presumption. Natural presumption is what the audience presumes to be true.

That's basically it. And so natural presumption is a better reflection of the status quo.

If presumption is supposed to side with the status quo, all right? So that's why in the last video,

I was talking about belief in God all around the world, and in this country specifically. You realize many non -believers participate in debates inside churches where the audience is predominantly

Christian. So that's why I asked, rather facetiously, might I add, are we going to just ascribe the burden of proof on the atheists now because the audience is predominantly

Christian? I don't think atheists want to go along with that. It's clear that you don't want to go along with that, Shan the man.

And I don't think I even want to go along with that. I thought I made that clear in the video. So the whole point is, if we want to think more formally and talk about ascribing the burden of proof, it's just not so simple.

It's not as easy as people think it is. There are considerations that lead to various issues. And that's why

I think there are really two choices here moving forward. Either we say in debates like these, apologetics debates, that there is no burden of proof, okay?

Both sides need to make their own cases. Both sides need to roll their own heavy stones up the mountain and then shoulder the other burdens in debate.

Which, by the way, that's awesome. I think these kinds of interactions help us to better understand the truth.

And if you're the type of person who's thinking to yourself right now, no, non -believers don't need to shoulder the burden of proof because, you know, science.

The science is settled. I mean, here's my question. What are you afraid of? Really? Maybe it's the case that the whole lot of us uneducated

Christians, we just need some proper schooling in how science answers metaphysical questions. Okay, fine.

Take the F and make your case. If your response to the debate resolution is true, what's the problem with shouldering the burden of proof?

I mean, really, what's the problem? It should be very easy for you. But wait a sec. Maybe science is insufficient to understand metaphysics.

Maybe in a debate or metaphysical issues, your logical positivism is an untenable position to hold.

In which case, you should shoulder your own burden of proof. So, like I said, if that's what you all want, okay, you want to see one side shoulder the burden of proof, okay, fine.

Word the resolutions much more clearly and maybe even stipulate at the outset who has the burden so you can draw out significant clash and the debate can be much more productive.

But also split the work. You know, take turns. Make both sides shoulder the burden in various debates.

You know, sometimes the Christian shoulders the burden of proof. Sometimes the non -Christian, the non -theist shoulders the burden.

So that the average person that comes and sits in and consumes these kinds of interactions can properly investigate these issues and come to their own informed conclusions.

All right, did I make a mistake with my comments about shouldering the burden of proof? I don't think I did. I think a lot of the comments that I got gave me pushback and accused me of shifting the goalpost.

All of that really came down to not actually listening to what I said. So maybe this is just a good reminder at the end of the day.

Open your ears in a discussion with someone that you disagree with. That way your responses can be to what someone is actually saying not with what they're not saying.

Thank you so much for the comments. If you'd like me to make more inside baseball videos on debate, let me know what you want me to talk about.

Just drop them in the comments and I'll take a look. As always, I will take a break and return soon with more videos.