"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is the rough equivalent of gun on a shoe, as far as a defense of God claims go.

It's a worthless, lazy tactic useful only as a deflection to shirk the burden of proof.

This is how ridiculous the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" retort is:

I can fly and grant wishes, and you can't prove otherwise.

The lack of evidence to prove these claims is not evidence that I can't do these things.

That's exactly what you're saying.

>And without believing that humans could be as unaware of
>higher life forms as lower life forms are unaware of us the
>question of where is the evidence has no value.

The question of whether or not the things people believe actually comport with reality will always have tremendous value.

All you're doing is underscoring the fact that there is no good supporting evidence for belief in a God.

>Why would someone even care about evidence of any sort when
>they have no belief in that which they wish to be evidenced?
>
>Seems irrelevant

You have it exactly backward.

Whether or not someone would care about evidence is irrelevant to whether or not that evidence actually exists.

You're doing an awful lot of gymnastics to avoid the uncomfortable truth that you do not have a good supporting body of evidence to support your beliefs.