Perfection!

[Purple Rabbit]

The thing is though.... I haven't said anything that makes me remotely guilty of The Argument From Ignorance though have I? (or indeed the argument from personal incredulity therefore).

...because I have not said that I assume that it's false or that some other conclusion that is unproven I assume to be true. I have said I don't think I know of any evidence, that's it.

No, we agree on this. You have only stated a belief. You have drawn no conclusion from it. I have been in total delusion in thinking that it was an argument of some sort since you generally throw in these phrases
after someone has held an argument in favour of X. For the untrained eye it would be quite in line with the discussion to suppose that you were throwing in an argument against X. But in your wording you have drawn no conclusion from it as you've extensively argumented. So I was completely wrong in supposing that. One even wonders how such a delusion comes about. And since you draw no conclusion it is not a syllogism, a statement consiting of premise(s) and conclusion. And since it is not a syllogism you have not used your beliefs or your lack of evidence as an argument. And since you have not done that, you have not committed the fallacy to infer from personal belief or lack of evidence. So in fact we have been arguing page after page for a non-existent assertion. It is just a belief that you happen to share in those odd moments where a person has argued for X. But don't let that timing fool us in believing it is relevant to the discussion at hand. Because as a personal belief it is not relevant for X, Y or Z. In fact it is not relevant at all and we can simply ignore it. I certainly will.

Can you please put in bold the part where I actually say something like "Because I don't believe I know of any evidence - I assume there isn't any!" or "Because I don't believe I know of no evidence.... then X conclusion must be right instead!!"

I haven't said anything like that.

So I cannot put in bold where you said that and I cannot stress enough the fact that you've argued nothing at all at precisely the wrong moment in debate. But only wrong of course in the eye of the beholder, that poor eye that so often is deluded by the patterns the mind is proposing.

The phrase I am using doesn't infer the argument from ignorance at all - the phrase I am using is exactly the sort of thing one can say using the English language that shows "I don't know... and not only that - I don't know that I don't know... so I might know, but I'm not claiming anything [so hence, where is the argument from ignorance? Everyone must be automatically committing the argument from ignorance whenever they make a statement if my statement is committing it - when it's about as far from committing it as you can get.]".

Yes, yes and yes again, you infer nothing at all, you leave that to the poor eye of the beholder. You have seriously gone beyond yourself in stressing that you have claimed nothing at all, that the sentence just as well could have not been there. We must only read your personal belief statement from it. Not an argument, not a reason, not a conclusion, not a point you're making. Get my drift?

Seriously though... please quote where I have said anything that equates remotely to: "Because X isn't proven then X must be false" or "because X isn't proven then Y must be true"....

And yes, sure, you're right, we can't be clear enough on this. We should shout it from the roof tops (probably a bad dutchism I guess): your remark says noting at all, it is just air to fill in spaces in debate.

If you substitute my "I don't know" for "isn't proven" - I still simply leave it at that... "I don't know" - I don't go on to say "therefore X is false" or "therefore Y" so I have no idea what you're talking about because I make no conclusion.

Yes you simply don't know. What's wrong with that? Nothing! Just a remark about your not knowing. Not intended relevant in any way. Hell, you might instead have commented on the rain in Africa LOL!

I am not even making a claim really.... that's the whole point. I'm making a statement of my own belief and then saying I'm not even sure if my belief is accurate in regards to the absence of evidence because I am not absolutely sure of anything (I think) - I'm not making any conclusion that falls into The Argument From Ignorance.

You're not making a claim. You're not making an argument. You're not inferring anything. It all is a casual and utterly empty remark. The sheer hollowness of it cannot be fathomed. We should totally ignore it and go on with whatever we were doing. Not even blink an eye, not raise a brow, not scratch an itch. From nothing nothing can come so there has'nt even been dispute on this. Your remark don't even exists. Consider it done.