Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[The Grand Nudger]

What's a photon?

I'm not sure why you think that a photon is an example of a statement being simultaneously true and false?  

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.

Who said anything about context not mattering?  I simply explained to you that if something being simultaneously true and false is a matter of context, then it's been equivocated over....?

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.

Again, if context is the difference, as a single logical statement, equivocation is almost always problem. It's not that something is simultaneously true and false, the proposition is malformed - as a logical statement-...even if it's perfectly workable conversationally.  Two separate meanings of a term in question are being employed interchangeably, and in that case regardless of whether either use of the term is sound, the form is invalid, and so we're not discussing truth, only fallacy.

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.

Is there some other kind of evidence?  The term evidence specifically refers to the things we are capable of perceiving.

Here's the rub.  It may be that we have no means of understanding the whys of existence, particularly if what is evident to us, as human beings, is incapable of piercing that veil...since we can't generate a true conclusion in the absence of sound propositions, and we can't determine that a proposition is sound in the absence of evidence.  If that's the case, no amount of lowering the bar will make it less so. We can make metaphysical claims all day long, even contradictory metaphysical claims, but that's all they'll be, claims. Noise. Which one is true, if any of them are true? No way to tell. Hence, claims demand evidence.

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.

What I know?  Here's what I know, in context, lol.  If we don't follow the rules, we may still possess insight, but it isn't philosophical or rational insight.  If we want to discuss truth, in a rational or philosophical context, we are discussing that which follows when valid form is applied to sound proposition.  One without the other doesn't cut it, not even for metaphysics. If a person cannot provide what is required to entertain their metaphysical claim as truth, that;s not a failure of any party other than the person making the metaphysical claim. Personally, I have a commitment to a modified sort of logical positivism. The number of possible claims necessarily outweighs the number of true claims, and, IMO, the only meaningful claims (again with regards to truth- just to head off the inevitable equivocation-as-objection) are those which can be solved by logical analysis. The rest is chimpsong.

@Rob. That;s just the etymology of evidence. The word evidence is derived as a noun from the adjective evident. That which is evident is evidence, evidence is that which is evident. To wit:

plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood.
"she ate the cookies with evident enjoyment"
synonyms: obvious, apparent, noticeable, conspicuous, perceptible, visible, discernible, clear, clear-cut, plain, manifest, patent;

-As to it being subjective, not so. Again, that it is objective is also bound up in the root term, which is why I mentioned earlier that not every experience is evidence, or evident. Experience is subjective, evidence is not. That which we experience is not always evident, and even that which is evident is not necessarily true. A person may see a ghost (experience), but that does not mean that the ghost is evident (evidence), or that there is a ghost(truth). Three terms referring to distinct concepts...granted, we often use the terms interchangeably in conversation.