Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[bennyboy]

If you find that a statement is simultaneously true and false then you have yourself a surefire indicator that the question is malformed, the answer is malformed, or both.

What's a photon?

 The moment you say "context" you've identified the misstep.  Equivocation.

If you don't think context matters, then stick your finger up your lover's butt in the middle of a restaurant. Tell her that truth is truth, and that if she both does or doesn't like being touched that way, her views are malformed.

Again, no?  It's that which is evident.

I'm used to spinning in these kinds of circles with religious folk, but I think you could stand to put effort into letting words actually mean . We call evidence that which we believe brings truth into view. However, there are plenty of things that are true in one context but not in another. It is true in our context, for example, that time passes at a certain rate, in whatever way you choose to define it, but that in another context, time does not move at that rate.

In other words, there is evidence that the truth pointed at by evidence is often context-dependent. There is not, however, any evidence that the kind of mundane physical evidence which you go on about can lead us to any improvement in out understanding of the whys of existence.

Sounds like somebody doesn't like being asked for evidence in support of their metaphysical claims.

Sounds like someone wants to beg the philosophical question, but will not allow rational ideas or philosophical insight to sway him from what he's already decided he knows.