Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[bennyboy]

My informing you of invalid arguments isn't, itself, an argument.    Forcing your statements into coherence isn't my work to do.   I've not only told you how I use the term truth and where I get the definition I use, multiple times, I've flat out asked you if we're talking about the same thing.  If we aren't, that's that, problem solved.

I don't care to conform with your view or your terminology. You can read what I said and figure it out yourself. Sound familiar?

 
Get your shit together.

Get some ideas of your own to talk about.


I have a pretty clear position, and I'm perfectly willing to stand by it and defend it. My position is that "claims demand evidence" isn't always true if you are talking about absolutes. This is because 1) many perfectly valid claims cannot be supported with evidence without metaphysical assumptions that are more fundamental than the claims themselves; 2) some things are true in some contexts, but not in others. You picked on an example, which I chose to be entertaining and simple, but I could have picked dozens of other examples-- because it should be obvious to anyone that real-world claims, and those are at least a subset of all possible claims, aren't as black-and-white as you are trying to make them out.