That's true, and was exactly my point: That it's impossible to know anything outside the confines of the universe. The mistake you're making is assuming that because we can't measure, that because we can't reach it, that:

1) Nothing can possibly exist outside just because it's unknowable to us
2) Someone from outside can't reach in

Another analogy is a fish in a river or pond. He maybe sees blurs from above the surface of the water, but he's confined to the water. He has no way to meaningfully explore the outside. A fish genius using your logic might theorize that nothing can possibly live outside of the water because he can't leave the water to explore it, and, because of the water/land barrier, can perform no meaningful experiments. To him, the idea of an entire society of beings radically different from him would seem ludicrous.

To a fish who has "faith" that humans exist, he has no way to prove it, and a fish scientist might call it "unfalsifiable." Perhaps the believer fish spent a few moments on a catch-and-release fisherman's boat and couldn't really explain what he saw. How would his story sound to skeptical fish who have never had such an experience?

To stretch this analogy a bit thinner, remember that no fish in the water would ever see a human, as such. They'd see the *implements* of humans -- hooks, mysteriously floating worms, lines, etc. Those aren't humans, and it would certainly strain credulity of any thinking fish that these things are the implements of some magical race of super-beings who can exist outside of the water.

See? The assumption that because we can't test it or have access to it, then it can't possibly exist is flawed.

You're not thinking "meta" enough.

One of the better analogies I've seen is the idea of the universe as a computer program. Once started, yes, everything follows rules and process, which is what a hypothetical scientist inside that computer would study. But the act of coming up with those rules, coming up with the system, the runtime, the engineering of putting it all together into a coherent system -- that's creation. In our universe, we can only study the "program" and make assumptions about where it came from and what the 'programmer' might be like. That's perfectly compatible with the big bang, evolution, and everything else we observe because it's all according the the rules of the system.

As someone within the confines of a system like that, you can't prove or disprove the existence of someone or something outside. You can only make conclusions based on the rules you know, which may not, in fact, be universal in the all-encompassing sense. Yes, that irks some people and does put God outside the reach of "science" and into the realm of "faith," and that's fine, but the decision to have that faith or not is a personal choice. That's why people like you need to chill out, and people who go around killing others in the name of their religion also need to chill out. Faith can only be a personal decision, and no one should be getting killed over it.

Science is the study and description of our universe, but what created that? What was there before? Was there anything before those rules were put down? Maybe different rules? Maybe no rules? Physics already postulates other "universes" with completely different sets of rules -- in essence, completely different "sciences." Perhaps your beloved scientists, in whom you put your faith and trust "need the help of a professional, a psychiatrist" as well?

If you're omniscient, it doesn't mean you've forced anyone's hand. It just means that you know which choices will be made, and the ultimate result of those choices.There's a subtle but important difference.

Imagine you see your kid on the other end of the room reaching for a stove burner. You see what he's doing, you know what will happen, you know he's gonna spend the next hour crying. That doesn't mean you made him do it. That was his choice. You just knew in advance about the burns and the crying.

Now your prediction isn't really omniscience because you're basing it on what you expect to happen in the next second or two. Something might catch his eye at the last moment and he decides not to do it, but that's really the only difference between omniscience and prediction. Well, that, and scale. Either way, it doesn't take away the free will of the actors.

You aren't the Ruler of the Universe, are you?

Uranus' atmosphere is 83% hydrogen, 15% helium and 2% methane, making oxidation a bit of a problem. Maybe something in the environment besides oxygen would work. I dunno.

Men have two, easily accessible: stomach and rectum. Women have three, adding in the vagina and uterus. Then you can get really creative and start surgically implanting stuff inside the abdominal cavity. For another twist, hollow out a prosthetic leg.

See? That was only a minute's thought. I assume that any terrorist with too much time on his hands can do better.

Ok, then take his own words:

Explaining why he wrote on his Web site that Hasan was a "hero," According to Shaea, Aulaqi said: "I blessed the act because it was against a military target. And the soldiers who were killed were not normal soldiers, but those who were trained and prepared to go to Afghanistan and Iraq."

Given that, how would you guess that he'd treat Hasan's questions during his correspondence with Hasan? Do you think he'd actively discourage or encourage it? Maybe just go half way with a wink and a nod, eh? Whether or not he pushed him into it, he almost certainly blessed the action "spiritually." Unfortunately, I can't find the article where Aulaqi said he encouraged Hasan to do it, even though I know I read it, so I'll back off on it for now for lack of evidence.

Either way, in Hasan's emails, he wrote about this being "jihad" and asked how to go about it. Honestly, I'm not sure what else you need. The guy is a terrorist. Cut and dry, damned by his own written words about premeditated murder.

Sure, that particular article, but there are an awful lot more. All it takes is the willpower to google them or the discipline to pay attention as the news is coming out. Hasan's motivation was unquestionably terrorism, as was that of the Underwear Bomber, Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab.

Stop apologizing and casting doubt for these idiots. It's you they're trying to kill.

In case you were genuinely interested:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/northwest-bomb-plot-planned-al-qaeda-yemen/story?id=9426085

After his confession, there's very little doubt that this guy's intention was to commit an act of terrorism. It was no "firecracker." Fortunately, all it did was burn the guy's nuts.

Not all terrorists are men.

You're obviously not paying attention.

Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born radical Muslim cleric and member of Al Qaeda in Yemen, encouraged Hasan to do it. Both acted for ideological reasons, same as any terrorists.

From: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/major-hasans-mail-wait-join-afterlife/story?id=9130339&page=1

Other messages include questions, the official with access to the e-mails said, that include when is jihad appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.

"Hasan told Awlaki he couldn't wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife," the official said.

There's lots more there, but that's pretty indicative. Feel free to RTFA.

If you're still waiting for demonstration, you're being lazy or blind. This guy was a radical Muslim and a terrorist by any definition.

I'm guessing that the only reason he made it off alive is that he burned himself so badly, and was probably so surprised to even be alive that I doubt he struggled much. If he put up a fight, he probably would have been dismembered. Many of the passengers didn't even know what had happened because it happened so fast. Let that struggle go on long enough for people to understand what's happening, and this moron would have had no hope of survival.

Sorry, I didn't realize the size of the explosives and intelligence of the attacker made the difference.

So, let me make sure I understand the nuances.

1. "Large explosives" on an airplane are terrorists. "Small explosives" are a bunch of goofs looking for a laugh, and nothing to worry about.
2. Failed bombers are "idiots" and successful bombers are "terrorists."

Richard Reid would approve of this new distinction. Let him loose and buy him a beer. "Sorry for the mistake, Dick. Try again next year."

Hah! Now I'm a Glen Beck puppet? Nice.

1. Sorry -- "in American Airspace" -- is that better, Mr. Pedantic? They were landing in Detroit, dude.
2. So... what? It's not terrorism, it's just a radical Muslim who'd been in frequent contact with radical clerics talking about the ethics of killing as many Americans as possible? Even though the cleric (Anwar al-Awlaki) who encouraged him to do it was an active member of Al Qaeda?
3. Your thinly veiled defense of Islamic radicals now requires you to be outed as the liberal Obama apologist and America-hater that you are.

Funny, yes, but you're clearly not imaginative enough. There are plenty of places a naked terrorist can hide a bomb. Not that it'd be pleasant, but, then, neither is blowing yourself up.