Well, if you are not a brain in a jar, maybe. As far as I am concerned, I don't have any undeniable evidence that you even exist, nor that I have hands.
That's a pretty useless kind of skepticism, but as long as you are going for objective "truth" you must face that kind of problem.
If I am a brain in a jar, do I have hands?
Well, then I would still have virtual/simulated/apparent hands. And, when I say "hands", by that word I mean those virtual/simulated/apparent hands. Hence, even in that scenario, I do indeed have hands.
The ordinary meaning of the English word "hands" encompasses both "ultimately physical hands" (of the kind I might have if I am not a brain in a jar and also not some AI living in a computer simulation) and also "simulated hands" (of the kind I might have if either of those hypothesises were true). So, either way, it is true that "I have hands". When I say that, I am not expressing any opinion on the truth or falsehood of those sceptical hypothesises. If I wanted to express an opinion on those sceptical hypothesises, I need to explicitly exclude them, i.e. "I have ultimately physical hands".
For instance, I have 5 fingers in each of my hands: you see them, you use them, so they must exist and be real. I’m no philosopher, but I suspect their arguments would go towards how can you trust your senses and perception to prove ideas about reality...
It's a bit like arguing "I" don't move my arm because neural signals trigger muscles to move the arm. Both are true, the language is just more involved if we don't share a common definition of "I".
Though, this is a good example of what I meant by precision of truth. "I observe five fingers" is more accurate, and there are still better phrasings, but individual inability to precisely communicate truth does not imply truth does not exist.