Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[emjay]

Just to say, after consulting a dictionary, equivocation doesn't mean quite what I thought it meant; I thought it just meant conflating terms, but the dictionary implies that equivocation is when it is done deliberately in a willful attempt to mislead. So I'm sorry about that Benny, I didn't mean that; I just thought you were conflating terms like I tend to do when I talk about neurons.

I assume you've found an example on your own, but I'll give one just to be very clear.  Christians might say something like, "Well. . . we know  there are physical laws, nobody debates that.  But maybe we should talk about who the law-MAKER was."  It's obvious to us that the laws of physics aren't meant to be viewed as those kinds of laws, but very much less obvious to the Christians-- I'm pretty sure that WLC had explicitly used that argument, actually.

To be fair to Rhythm, I have used some words in different ways.  That's because it's a long thread and I'm turning over a few different ideas in my head.  But using different definitions is only really an equivocation fallacy if it's a deliberate attempt to redirect the outcome of a discussion.  Sometimes using "true" to mean that a statement is accurate, or sometimes using it to say that is logically coherent, isn't really an equivocation fallacy.

I hope it's clear by now that that's not what I meant nor did Rhythm (Note: bring back Rhythm... and bring back fucking Mario (literally )! /protest ) if his post to me about it usually being unintentional is anything to go by.

And arguably even with such an extreme example as the one you've given it's not necessarily intentional on the part of a theist, just ignorant. Unless of course, they follow the letter of their law (ie do not [explicitly] lie) rather than the spirit (do not be dishonest/deceive; explicitly or by omission)... in which case it could be deliberate but just rationalised away on the grounds that 'it wasn't really lying... I just didn't correct anyone's assumptions... so it's their fault for not asking questions, not mine'. In other words in that scenario they tell the truth, but not 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so help them God ]'.