This question involves three assumptions that need to be examined:
1) That evidential certainty is POSSIBLE,
"Evidential certainty" implies 100% awareness of every event in the universe, the end of time, and a beginning and an end of the evolutionary process of the universe.
Evidence of that possibility, is not testable and, hence, according to available evidence, is epistemically unintelligible.
2) That absolute knowledge is possible.
Absolute knowledge entails universal (i.e., past, present, and future) evidence of every event in the universe.
3) That the word "possible" can be applied to non-physical-substantive terminology.
In the absence of physicality, nothing is possible.
To speak of transcendent, metaphysical, and supernatural "possibilities" (such as miracles), is utter nonsense.
To say, "It is possible that there is absolute knowledge," is to say there is evidence of that possibility.
According to available evidence that possibility is not testable.
Evidence is an open-ended pursuit.
There is empirical evidence that only probable knowledge is possible; i.e.; to date there is NO evidence of absolute knowledge.
There is no empirical evidence that absolute knowledge is possible and therefore, is unintelligible also.
According to available evidence, the only legitimate conclusion we can come to is that all legitimate claims to knowledge are based on available evidence.
According to available evidence, a claim that there is or might be absolute knowledge is untestable, unverifiable, and unfalsifiable.
Therefore such a claim is epistemically unintelligible.