standard of evidence

[Rational AKD]

"arguments" are not proof.

did I say proof? I could have sworn I was asking if they counted as "empirical evidence."

They can be skewed to presuppose the desired answer.

that's why you use logic to determine if the argument is valid. then you look at the evidence to determine if the premises are true to determine if the argument is sound. if the argument is sound, then its conclusion is true.

They are as bad as anecdotal evidence, which agian is not acceptable.

no, they're not. at least, not when you use logic to determine validity and soundness. quick lesson, a valid argument is when the truth of the conclusion is directly related to the truth of the premises. so a valid argument is true if its premises are true. a sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. so the conclusion of a sound argument is necessarily true. establishing these things determine the truth of the conclusion of an argument.

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

the point of the question being general is to prevent special pleading fallacy. it shouldn't be too hard to answer; does a valid argument whose premises are supported by empirical evidence count as empirical evidence?

I don't even know what a god is supposed to be.

lets just say he is a necessary being who created the universe, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. that's a minimum definition in modern philosophy.

I have seen some descriptions say stupid things like he is a "being outside of time and space" what does this even mean.

that he is an un-embodied mind that exists outside space-time. a mind requires no space to exist, so it's not logically absurd.

And even the pathetic god is love, god is mercy and god is the foundation of morality which is just anthropomorphising abstract concepts.

actually those are figurative descriptions of God, not literal ones. saying "God is love" is like saying "I am hungry." and the figurative description is used to indicate all love comes from God, not that he's literally love.

Only if you want to delude yourself.

And I can see that you do.

oh? you offer criticism without a counter? that's nice... can you at least tell me why it is more rational to believe God doesn't exist than to believe he does? preferably without using the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam please.

And I am telling you why that standard has to be beyond reasonable. There's nothing irrational about it.

that's a new one. there's nothing irrational about something being beyond reasonable. well, that was so bad you earn 10 hours of derp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQB4nAjZIdE

A fish and chip shop moves into the building next to mine. I have some concerns over the impact on my health - I go and ask some questions, get answers and decide its OK.

A nuclear reactor moves into the building next to mine. I have some concerns over the impact on my health - I go and ask a lot of fucking questions - way more than I would for the shop and I expect a much better quality of answer.

again, your examples are not related because you use them as an equivocation fallacy. the examples are related to the interest of people, but i'm talking about rational proof which is independent and unrelated to interests. why don't you use an example of 2 different things of equal interest so it's not a factor because factoring personal interests in logical arguments results in many fallacies.