Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[Thumpalumpacus]

But the thing is, one claim is abstract, and the other posits a claim about reality. When we're talking about the existence of a being in reality, it is not an abstraction, and cannot be evidenced by simple words.

"Being" is an abstraction.  What I perceive in reality are conglomerations of colors and shapes.  When one of these shapes is examined *very closely*, one discovers that it is a conglomeration of more shapes.  In other words, that it -- this particular shape -- is individuated in my mind as as a distinct unit with its own existence which is independent from everything else -- but that it also shares "properties" which I identify through common terms -- is an abstraction.  

This is an assumption that doesn't bear up to scrutiny. The fact is that you and I can both examine an object and come to agreement about its properties based on our perceptions and where those perceptions overlap. We can thereby ascertain that the object is material and not an abstraction. Simply because the event of perceiving happens in the mind doesn't mean that what is perceived is an abstraction. You're equivocating "abstraction" and "mental event".

Definition of abstract


1 a : disassociated from any specific instance <an abstract entity>

b : difficult to understand : abstruse <abstract problems>

c : insufficiently factual : formal <possessed only an abstract right>

2 : expressing a quality apart from an object <the word poem is concrete, poetry is abstract>

3 a : dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : theoretical <abstract science>

b : impersonal, detached <the abstract compassion of a surgeon — Time>

4 : having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content <abstract painting>

[Emphases added -- Thump]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstract