Reply to comment

A few responses, Eric.

1. You're only in your thirties and you're already cranky? You are going to be one mean old dude. Maybe you should get some pointers from Bortz. He seems like he's aged pretty happily, right Fred? (That guy is cool.)

2. I'm not sure trying to reason out the motives of an omniscient being is all that helpful, and that was my point. I would assume that someone who knew everything would have a set of priorities drastically different then our own (and I guarantee that one of them isn't publishing.) I think trying to comprehend omniscience is especially hard for scientists because their livelihood depends on their ability to find things out for people. Then again, if you knew everything, who needs a livelihood?

3. There's a ton that could be said concerning your experiences with religion (or lack thereof), but I'm not sure this is the place for such a long theological discussion. I will say this. There either is a God or there isn't one. It seems to me like the only way to find out is to find some kind of defined repeatable method. If God really wants us to know, then we must assume that he has set up such a method. Whether it meets scientific standards of measurability is irrelevant, and whether or not it comes through an organized religion is irrelevant (although it would make sense to find it attached to some kind of organization, right? Of course that would mean all of the other organizations aren't legit, and so your distrust in 99.9% of them would be justified). Most religions have some kind of belief in prayer. If you really wanted to know, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to just try asking directly. Anyway, I guess I'm saying that there should always be a little space reserved for the possibilities.