And you're using that as a a code of logic? Start off with an answer and never change it regardless of how much evidence is thrown against it? I don't believe for one second that someone could live like that. Sorry.

Scientific works, updating theories based on observations works. The laws of nature never change, only our understanding of them, and that understanding will only ever increase.

But for risk of repeating myself I'll just point you to my reply to Joecool7 earlier, where I explained things a little more in depth.

Evidently you can interpret it as 'yes' or 'no' because people do, as I showed. Arbitrarily announcing that it doesn't does not make you right. The brain activity is physical proof that a conscience thought has been made by the user. It may just be the areas of the brain that they are using to complete the task that light up, but it still provides physical evidence of the physical thought in the first place. And the fact that humans can sometimes make a thought with their subconscious  does not make any difference to an argument concerning the measurement of a conscience thought.

That's a pretty interesting way of explaining it. I kind of wish I knew more about the topic so I could make a more educated response. Right now I'm in university and one of my classes is anthropology so we've been going over lots of evolutionary theory and that sort of thing. So by the end of the year I'll certainly have better answers.

For now all I can say is the reason I'm not convinced that evolution (as the origin of all species) is true is because of all the gaps and missing links in the evolutionary tree. Plus its hard to believe that all of the thousands...no millions of species of animals we have today evolved from the first life forms on Earth.

But I do believe that some evolution has occured since the time God created us (which is my belief). Natural selection makes perfect sense to me as only the strongest animals survive and therefore only the desirable traits get passed down to their offspring. Also there is good evidence of mutations occuring which mess with DNA and genes.

So really I'm on board with parts of science, but I don't think I'll ever change my belief that God created the world and everything in it unless there's some major breakthrough in science that is 100% fact/evidence based and not just theories.

What if there is a God, and there is some huge overall plan that we are all apart of. That doesn't necessarily mean that we are all individually important and have some immortal part of us that will carry on past this life. Maybe we're just important in the overall continuation and development of our universe, but as an individual we don't mean much. If any part of us carries on to a different state of existence, I doubt it would carry any trace of memory or conscious thought, I think we'd become something entirely different from what we understand "existing" to be.

But who knows!

To be honest I think that way of looking at life (as in the atheist view of when you die, that's it!) actually makes you cherish life more. This is your one shot to make a difference to humanity and enjoy your existence and consciousness. Don't waste it!

the concept of God can only be a sentient being because that is what people believed in and applied the name of God to.  the idea of the laws of physics being God would not be God at all, it would be simply a grouping of the physical laws of existence into a single term, but that concept wouldn't be the same as God.  so, there is no need to attempt to define what God is in regards to those two different concepts because the concept of god is only one of them and the other is not.

and in the case that the concept of God does not actually exist, that wouldn't make the laws of physics then God, it would simply continue them as what they are...the laws of physics. there is no confusion that needs to be clarified in this regard to then address the existence or non-existence of God. 

I'm agnostic...

But, God is the feeling you get in your spine at a heavy metal concert when your on a bunch of random pills.

SCIENCE IS A BELIEF

It is not the same belief than religion because religion is a blind belief while science is "tested" belief.
In clear, Religion is all about belief in something without doubting, without asking yourself "where does it come from ? why ?". Religion is basically all about having faith in.
While in Science, you basically doubt about EVERYTHING, all the time. It is only when something has been proven/tested that you can come and say "it is true !" (your gravity example for example).
To me, it is not about "disbelief without evidence" but more "belief with evidence". 
Of course, Science is not about faith ...

There is also just some very little shit in Science/Research :
- experimental error : whatever the level, you can have something wrong in the raw datas (because of the sample or the material used)
- interpretation error : scientist making a wrong interpretation
This means that what is true is often wrong ... suggesting you "only" belief it is true because it seems, right now, at this time, in these condition, "true"

Also, one of the major flaw of science is that, for most of us, it escapes from our understanding and so we are completely unable to prove/test it by ourself. This means we are, again, believing in what is said to be "true" wether it is true or not. I may know that electricity is produced by an electron movement ... I basically completely unable to prove it, neither propose an experiment to prove it. I m like 99.99% of the populaition : I belief what scientifc book/master says ... like in a religion.
To take another example : a computer is basically a pure black box for most of us. Fews people will be able to explain, and fully understand (at 100%) how it functions.

You know, I still agree with you for most of your points. I just consider that, at the end, Science is still about "belief". You may not blindly believe to old text or to religious guy like in religion BUT you will still believe in the scientific community that may be wrong, may publish shit, are just human with subjectif judgement AND is dealing with so complex stuff that the average guy is barely able to get what is happening.
You just belief in "human research/progress/knowledge" in a way.

At the end, when all is said : it is still about "belief or not"

I definitly think there are forces out there, or "higher powers" that we don't understand, either by the limit of our brains, or by our lack of knowledge we have thus far. As humans, we are limited to what we know and are discovering new things all the time. So there are definitly uncharted areas and new levels of conciousness beyond are ability to comprehend. So I guess you can refer to that as "God" because it is a power higher than us.

But what I DON'T believe God is is a human-like figure up in the sky who watches over everything we do, has a concious mind, answers our prayers, bends things to his will, etc... I think that's a very simplistic view and is nothing more than a cop out for people that try to understand things that we can't understand.

I believe in a creator of some sort but he is not the allmighty God who created Earth in 6 days.

Spirituality > Organized religion