Agnostics are not Atheists and they deserve their own forum.

[ElboRuum]

102. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

This is not automatically fallacious.

I know that's hard for some self-described agnostics to grasp, but it's true.

I posit the existence of a human being 20 foot tall.

After much searching for evidence of such a person, I find none. Which is the more logical conclusion to draw?

1) No such being currently exists.
2) We do not know if such a being exists, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence therefore, we cannot know.

Two, while seeming to be the most logical, is the least logical. While it may be true that direct proof of nonexistence is not possible, it is reasonable in the dearth of evidence when all reasonable effort has been made to locate direct or indirect evidence for existence that the logical requirements for indirect proof of nonexistence has been made.