Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[Edwardo Piet]

You don't actually understand the argument from ignorance do you?

"Not a shred of evidence... therefore improbable" is not the argument from ignorance. That is being reasonable.

"Not a shred of evidence... therefore impossible" is the argument from ignorance.

No one said it was impossible or that absence of evidence was evidence of absence, we're just saying that making up some magical shit out of thin air and expecting it to still be probable without any evidence is about as irrational as it gets.

Argument from Ignorance  Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Now I don't think that your inclusion of "probably" really makes all that much difference.  It still seems like the conclusion is assumed, until there is evidence otherwise, which would be the argument from ignorance.  There wasn't any evidence or reason given to the claim, but was stated, that it wasn't proven otherwise.   What is it that you think that I am not understanding here?

You are not understanding the fact that there are a million things without evidence, that are improbable, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And it would only be the argument for ignorance to suggest that those things definitely don't exist. You're lacking nuance.

Do you have positive evidence that Zeus doesn't exist? That firebreathing dragons don't exist? Do you consider that firebreathing dragons probably don't exist because there's never been any evidence of them? Then by your own crappy understanding of the Argument from Ignorance, you're committing the fallacy purely by not believing in firebreathing dragons.

From the exact page you linked on the Argument from Ignorance:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist because I can't prove that he does.

---

It still seems like the conclusion is assumed, until there is evidence otherwise, which would be the argument from ignorance. 

Right. If I assumed that God doesn't exist until there was evidence of him, that would be the argument from ignorance. I'm not doing that. I'm not assuming anything. I'm rationally considering that God is improbable because there is no evidence of him, the same way you rationally consider the improbability of firebreathing dragons due to lack of evidence of firebreathing dragons.