"Arguments are Not Evidence"

The premises and support for the premises are the evidence. The argument is just a logical arrangement of the evidence. And, given that the premises are well supported and that the argument is valid, the argument will give you additional evidence in the form of its conclusion.  

The different premises in the various theistic arguments receive their evidential status from a variety of sources: The Teleological Argument clearly relies heavily on empirical reasoning. The Cosmological Argument does too, in that it can resort to arguments from science for the finitude of the past. Joshua Rasmussen's defense of the PSR, a key move for the Cosmological Argument, clearly relies somewhat on empirical evidence: "Now that we have some preliminaries out of the way, I will share a few reasons I think PE can help us extend sight. First, PE successfully predicts many observations. In this respect, PE is like the law of gravity. The law of gravity successfully predicts the many cases of gravitational attraction. Similarly, PE successfully predicts the many cases of explanation. Successful prediction provides evidential support for the theory."

But the arguments do also make use of rational intuition.  Seeing that the recombination principle is true, though getting some of its support from empirical knowledge, also relies on rational intuition in seeing that it seems possible to extend its use further.  This principle is used in formulating the Grim Reaper style paradoxes that go to support the Kalam.