standard of evidence

[Cheerful Charlie]

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?

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?

To start with,many theists claim knowledge of god based on revelation?
Which revelation? Christianity, Islam, Mormonism? The Vedas, revealed to us by inspired rishis? Greek myths, revealed by inspired poets?
Mankind has had many, many allegedly inspired revelations that are obviously false as they disagree with each other. since we know that, we know inspiration is questionable. With so many erroneous 'revelations' its quite possible ALL revelations are indeed false. So we have circular problem here, to prove revelation you have to prove God exists, so you cannot guarantee God's existence by appealing to revelation.

Many so called revelations such as Christianity and Islam makes claims about the nature and attributes of God that are self contradictory and thus impossible.
We can discard those.

Now, what evidence is there? Of What? God? A few Gods? Many Gods? Many not quite Godlike beings? A hylozoic Universe? No gods at all, naturalism?

Plato in his "The Laws - Book X" invented natural theology, trying to demonstrate that God exists, aiming it squarely and explicitly at atheists. Today, 2300 years later, theologians and philosophers have uniformly agreed natural theology fails.

There is no logical proof or evidence for any god(s). After 2,300 years, the best minds in the world produced no evidence for God. And not for want of trying. The burden of proof is very definitely on theism.

Strong atheism notes the claims made about God's attributes and nature and the
contradictions they create and so we can safely say, the grand gods of grand theologies are failures.

I am a strong atheist. The many different kinds of gods all have self contradictions that demonstrate their impossibility. And one can fill entire large libraries with theological works that have no knock down, end of argument, QED proofs of God.

Where do we go from here?

Can you produce the evidence or proof of God millenias of theologians and philosophers could not find? Can you establish one and only one revelation as a true revelation with no possibility of error?

Cheerful Charlie