The Law Of Contradiction

Yes I would say the same thing.
I can never know with absolute certaintay that these things do not exist. They are not disprovable.
Now if something is inconsistent with the laws of physics then that is another thing entirely. But none of the things you listed actually ARE inconsistent.
The fact is that there always remains the faint possibility that any or all of them might exist in some form or other.It's all in the definitions. If you define it as being inconsistent with physics then that definition of it cannot exist. Some other definition still could, no matter how remote the possibility.

Precisely No I haven't. That's the whole point. I may lean 99.99% of the way towards a conclusion but I have never reached it and never will. Sure they do. I believe the sun comes up every day. And many other things.
What I do not believe in is anything that is impossible to prove one way or the other. Belief in future occurences is not even using the same definition of the word "believe" It doesn't equate at all.

That is actually a good point.
I tend to think in black and white when it comes to belief. I keep forgetting that others don't.
I always equate belief with a "feeling" (if you like) of certainty and that is my meaning when I discuss it.In my terms I hold no beliefs unless I am absolutely certain of them.
Then again I also follow the scientific method of "tentativity" which kind of leave me with no beliefs at all unless they are in observable facts.
ie. I believe that OH- reacts with H+ to make water. I have observed it. I have measured it. It is a scientific fact.
I do not "believe" in the TOE even though I see it as a very very strongly supported theory. It is not yet an observable fact.
I do believe in evolution (the fact that is). It has been observed and recorded.I realize I am not using the word "believe" in quite the same way as you are, although I keep forgetting that during discussions. The trouble is that I don't know what other word to actually use in its place to get my meaning across.

Hmm. And there I was thinking that science doesn't actually recognize the existence of "Irreducable Complexity".The point is that if God exists then he does it in a way that science cannot test, measure or even hypothesize about. Even the creationist term "Irreducable complexity" has nothing to say about God. We can't possibly know if he would fit the criteria unless we could test, measure etc. him/her, so we are back to saying nothing aren't we/

Excuse me.
Are you saying that science doesn't need to test something in order to make a determination? yes that would be a really good question to ask. However it would NOT be a scientific one.
All you have here is a big old "Argument from incredulity". A logical falacy.
I re-iterate, Science says NOTHING about the existence or non-existence of God. It can't! He doesn't fit into its framework.

True but isn't that going a step further and actually saying something about his existence/non-existence anyway?
I would imagine that if God does exist then he should be extremely relevent.
Or do you think maybe the fact of missing evidence for his existence should be construed as positive evidence for his lack of existence.
I sometimes find myself leaning that way myself but I don't think it is scientifically valid to go down that road.

That has to be one of the most eloquently put arguments I have ever heard.
Nice one.