standard of evidence

[Faith No More]

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? 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?

I agree with Kant in that our understanding and knowledge of the phenomenal world cannot be extended to that of the noumenal one. Metaphysical answers fail because we have no way of knowing if the understanding we gain through our mental faculties is applicable beyond the phenomenal world. Thus, we cannot rely on purely metaphysical reasoning.

As for conclusions based upon empirical evidence, I think that depends on how far you try to extend your conclusion, i.e. we see that everything in the phenomenal world is preceded by a cause, but that does not allow us to make claims about cause and effect outside of spatial and temporal dimensions.

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 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?

I'm not sure if one simple standard for all claims can be determined, for if this were possible, there wouldn't be so many different conclusions based upon the same evidence. But here is the process I like to use. Firstly, there has to be the consideration of the support behind the positive argument and the support behind the negation of that argument. Then one has to take into account such things like how many assumptions must be made in order for the positive argument to be true, and does the argument appear to make intuitive sense. That latter part is tricky, as much of our knowledge must be taken a priori without actual proof. Then one has to weigh how well certain claims fit with his/her epistemological standard. For instance, I believe that all knowledge human beings attain must be understood in the context that it is discovered, which is that it always must understood that it has been perceived and filtered by the human brain. We must do our best to understand how the organizational and perceptual effects of the brain are influencing our attempt to gain knowledge.

All in all, I think it comes down to the individual and his/her viewpoints, not some objective standard that can be rigidly used for all claims.