standard of evidence

[downbeatplumb]

I've noticed a lot on these forums there are those who claim either that there is no evidence that supports theism or not enough. this brings a couple questions to my mind. what do you consider positive evidence to support a religious proposition such as theism? is there only empirical evidence and if so why can't deductive and inductive arguments work as well?

"arguments" are not proof.
They can be skewed to presuppose the desired answer.
They are as bad as anecdotal evidence, which agian is not acceptable.

lets say there's an argument that consists of premises that are supported by empirical evidence and in and of themselves have no religious implication. the conclusions drawn from such premises would have religious implication and would logically be supported from the premises. would this count as empirical evidence?

Lets look at these on a case by case basis. This question is too general to answer here.

the next question I have is what is considered an adequate amount of evidence for theism? sometimes it seems people demand an unreasonable amount of evidence to the point where it is impossible to prove the proposition.

I don't even know what a god is supposed to be. I have seen some descriptions say stupid things like he is a "being outside of time and space" what does this even mean. And even the pathetic god is love, god is mercy and god is the foundation of morality which is just anthropomorphising abstract concepts.

I myself have a standard burden of proof for every proposition.
-if a proposition has more supporting evidence than its negating proposition, then it is most reasonable to believe that proposition (note that doesn't make the proposition itself true). if there is an equal amount or no evidence for a proposition and/or its negation, then it is most reasonable to believe in a neutral skeptical agnosticism concerning the propositions.
do you think this is fair?

Only if you want to delude yourself.

And I can see that you do.