Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[paulpablo]

Just responding to the first post of the thread.

True claims aren't always supported by evidence.

All claims require equal amounts of evidence to be proven true.

If I say "i saw Jim" there's already evidence gathered in relation to if the person can see, who Jim is, can Jim be seen, do people called Jim exist.

If I say I saw god, a ghost, aliens or whatever.
That requires an equal amount of evidence. It's a claim that no person has ever before supplied proof of ever happening. That person needs to prove ghosts exist, how they can be seen, so and so on.

But true claims aren't always provided with evidence.
I could say I got into work on time today and the true but I have no evidence I can be bothered to show you. I don't care if you believe me and you don't care if I am telling the truth.

[Mudhammam]

I have made no claim other than requiring evidence, your word salad notwithstanding.

If you need the poster to dumb down their statements so that you can follow, perhaps you're in the wrong thread.

Value judgments are subjective by definition.

That might be true in one sense, but that's not the sense I mean. There can be objective facts about subjective states. "To discover truth is better than to believe in lies" is a value judgment that only matters because in most situations it is objectively true.

[Mudhammam]

The trick, at least to me, is to understand that absolute reality and reality-in-context don't have to be the same thing.  In the context of mundane life, I can say that there's really and truly a book on my desk.  I know that if anyone else comes into my room, they will agree with me that there is in fact a book on my desk.  However, in a more universal context, I cannot be sure that the book, the person, and maybe even I, exist objectively.  It is the given that things are real that establishes the context for truth and objectivity.

The problem is that metaphysical positions SET the context by which other truths are determined, so when we attempt to establish the truth of a metaphysical position, the truth statement will be either self-dependent, or automatically-defeated, or complete nonsense.

(bold mine)
To me that's probably the least trivial fact one can recognize because we don't decide which 'truth statements' will have such and such features.  That's why I have some sympathy with those who argued for something like Divine Reason, which, for me is just a poetic way of saying that our "mental coherence" forms its reality-in-context of absolute reality.

[bennyboy]

Please explain what you mean by the last two words of your post: "absolute reality." To me, this means a reality which is not dependent on any other context, kind of like the philosophical equivalent of the God idea. What does it mean to you.

[Mudhammam]

Please explain what you mean by the last two words of your post: "absolute reality." To me, this means a reality which is not dependent on any other context, kind of like the philosophical equivalent of the God idea. What does it mean to you.

I'm with you on that. It's the (non?)point at which everything and nothing are indistinguishable. The "eternal now."

[bennyboy]

Please explain what you mean by the last two words of your post: "absolute reality."  To me, this means a reality which is not dependent on any other context, kind of like the philosophical equivalent of the God idea.  What does it mean to you.

I'm with you on that.  It's the (non?)point at which everything and nothing are indistinguishable.  The "eternal now."

Yeh.  It seems to me you could call it a singularity, or the Logos, or God, or probably a lot of other things.

[Mudhammam]

Yeh.  It seems to me you could call it a singularity, or the Logos, or God, or probably a lot of other things.

But saying its vague and abstract and even paradoxical does not imbue it with the psychological proclivities of a particularly self-deluded species, which is an objectively worse (because its infinitely misleading) manner of description. Same with using words embedded with historical or religious significance, such as Logos, Architect, or Creator.

[bennyboy]

Yeh.  It seems to me you could call it a singularity, or the Logos, or God, or probably a lot of other things.

But saying its vague and abstract and even paradoxical does not imbue it with the psychological proclivities of a particularly self-deluded species, which is an objectively worse (because its infinitely misleading) manner of description.  Same with using words embedded with historical or religious significance, such as Logos, Architect, or Creator.

It's a fine line between metaphor and misinformation, methinks. One claims only to represent ideas or ideals, and the other claims to represent truth.

[Mudhammam]

It's a fine line between metaphor and misinformation, methinks.

I dunno, Benny, come out of your tall ivory tower and talk to people on the street.

[Aroura]

I love Qualiasoup, he explains things so clearly.
The entire video is relevant. Videos like this should be required watching for all middle school aged kids and up, honestly.