Isn't this a simpler characterization that captures the notions of "burden of proof" just as well:
Anyone who claims that a proposition is true has the burden of supporting their claim.
So when someone claims p = "There exists at least one god", they have the burden of supporting their claim; when someone claims p = "No gods exist", they have the burden of supporting their claim.
In your example of the apple, when someone says, "There exists at least one apple", what might constitute support for their claim:
1) Your memory of apples existing, along with the belief that this memory is accurate; or
2) Sensory-perception of an apple (say, if they provide you with an apple that you can see and taste and touch)
What you consider "support" depends on your theory of justification.
Anyone who claims that a proposition is true has the burden of supporting their claim.
So when someone claims p = "There exists at least one god", they have the burden of supporting their claim; when someone claims p = "No gods exist", they have the burden of supporting their claim.
In your example of the apple, when someone says, "There exists at least one apple", what might constitute support for their claim:
1) Your memory of apples existing, along with the belief that this memory is accurate; or
2) Sensory-perception of an apple (say, if they provide you with an apple that you can see and taste and touch)
What you consider "support" depends on your theory of justification.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
