Is evidentialism justified?

[Stempy]

I don't expect justification because it leads to fallacy and I do doubt my skepticism, in the sense I question it (and I doubt my doubts all the time) : You are assuming I don't.

I don't think you really do doubt your skepticism, and that is not an assumption but the observation that you do not apply your skeptical criteria consistently.

Take this business of "justification leading to a fallacy". In order to get to the conclusion that justification leads to an infinite regress, you have to ask "Why do you believe that?" at every stage of the argument. But that assumes that "Why do you believe that?" is a relevant question to ask. And by assuming it is a relevant question, you in turn assume that not being able to answer with reference to some other belief in some way affects the justification.

For example: A says that he believes he is seeing a tree. B says "Why do you believe that?" A has two responses: acknowledge the relevance of the question (in which case he must give some reason to trust his sight or some other such reason) or simply reply "I don't know why I believe that, but I don't need to know why I believe that in order to be justified in believing it. Why do you believe that I do need to know?"

Clearly, the question is relevant only if the justification of his belief depends on some other belief he has (e.g. that his sight is trustworthy). Whether that is a valid assumption in this case is not my point - my point is that in order for the question "Why do you believe that?" to be in any way relevant depends on that assumption, and the iterative skepticism you employ can just as easily be applied to the assumption itself.

Despite this, you have concluded that justification is impossible. But it is your argumentation, not the claim that justification is possible (and indeed actual), that begs the question.

ALL things are tautological.

I'm afraid that is hopeless gibberish. Tautologies are logical formulae that are true independent of the meaning of the symbols contained therein, so unless all things are logical formulae(!) that makes no sense whatsoever.