standard of evidence

[Rational AKD]

You seem to go word-by-word calling fallacy, and there is the fallacy of fallacy. Your attempt to stain informal discourse to your profit, fails. You are still dodging. Show us a god!

yes very good, there is a fallacy fallacy. unfortunately you don't seem to know what it is. the fallacy fallacy is when you claim someone is wrong because they use a bad argument or a logical fallacy. I didn't claim that. I claim your argument is invalid because you use a logical fallacy. that's not committing the fallacy fallacy. a rule of thumb you can use is when they are attacking the conclusion because of faulty logic in the argument, it's the fallacy fallacy. if they just attack the argument, it's not. and i'm still dodging? let me make a parody the argument.
A: how much evidence do we need?
B: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A: that's subjective.
B: why?
A: the dictionary says so.
B: you're dodging.

---

So the question appears to be why do we need such strong evidence, relatively, for God as opposed to other things (like Quarks).

Its a reasonable question and deserves a reasonable but brief answer, namely:

I am not expected to worship a quark, nor am I commanded to love that Quark. God on other hand appears to demand both whilst quarks make no demands of me whatsoever.

Its not, however, all bad news. You (probably) claim your God is all-powerful, all-knowing and so on. For that God to provide sufficient evidence of his existence to an atheist must be a walk in the park.

So just put in a request and we'll be waiting here.

irrelevant. to say a claim requires more evidence because of the implications of how it impacts your life is an appeal to consequence fallacy. all claims require equal burden of proof, and lifestyle implications have absolutely no baring on the proposition's truth value.