Perfection!

[Edwardo Piet]

Exactly. And PR - claiming that "I have no evidence" is MORE ignorant than claiming that I don't think I know of any evidence, clearly. Yes it goes on for infinite regress but at least I am making the point of being LESS ignorant than claiming absolute knowledge of knowing that there is no evidence (which I am incapable of honestly holding). The only reason I don't type an infinite amount of "I don't believe that don't believe that..." , etc. - is because that's clearly an impossible task - but nevertheless stating that I don't believe I know of any evidence is more intellectually honest than claiming that I simply "hold no evidence" - if we are to take that to mean "I KNOW I hold know evidence." I consider everything ultimately unknowable, including my own thoughts and beliefs (or lack thereof). That is what I am trying to clarify. All is unknowable... not only is evidence unfinalized because it isn't proof - but whether I know of any evidence or not is also unprovable and unknowable (I think).

("I don't believe I know of any evidence for the existence of X in an objective or absolute sense") suggests that some inability to retrieve your own knowledge is presented as a reason (i.e. argument) for absence of belief. And that indeed is argument from ignorance.

Please explain how that statement suggests any argument whatsoever. It's a statement that I don't believe that I know of the existence of any evidence for X. Where the fuck is the argument(s) and/or reason/reasoning?

EvF