Perfection!

[Purple Rabbit]

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 am sympathetic to the caution you strive for but a plea for infinite regress does not make it into valid reasoning. To say that you know you hold no evidence does not add anything new to your statement that you hold no evidence because how could you comment on it when you wouldn't know that you held no evidence?

("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?

When you start with "I don't believe" the focus is on the fact that it is a statement of belief, not a statement about what you know. You could believe anything. It has been shown in excess here on AF that it is possible to believe in anything in the face of contrary evidence. Even that you have no evidence if you had evidence. The "I don't believe" really cripples your statement IMO. So it becomes a statement where you argue from one believe to the next. The believe X (i.e. that you know about no evidence) as such becomes a reason, an argument for believe in Y (i.e. that there is no evidence).

But after having discussed this thoroughly it is clear to me that I read to much in your words. You don't intend what I read into it. Though your wording will never be mine I will refrain from commenting on this reappearing statement of yours. I hope you didn't feel offended by the rather meticulous questioning on my part.