That's because we've seen him talk (at least on film).
"Hey, we've got the equations. Who needs anything else?"
I have an analogy for you. Do you fully understand God? Do you have a visual image that you could convey on paper or other media? A metaphor that can't be overextended?
I think you are having trouble with the notion that science can study and reliably predict phenomena for which there are no really good images or metaphors. In such a case it may take generations for the culture to find a way of talking about the phenomena. Do you suppose the people of Aristotle's time could have easily coped with Newton's equations? Before you answer I'd like you ponder the concepts of zero and infinity and how they relate to calculus. Both concepts are relatively modern.
Do you need to make this analogy before you can answer my question? Or did you just mean not to answer my question at all?
Analogy time! "Fully?" No. "Visual image?" No, not of God. Still I could somewhat convey in language my understanding of God. I believe this can be done, for God's appeal is addressed to man via mind and heart. And all of the natural world with all its contents (myself included) points to God. To explore it is to enter into a kind of "conversation" with God -- a conversation that, in a certain way, "supplements" His own relevation of Himself to us in the Holy Scriptures. (Which I do not read "literally." To me, that's too much like a lawyer deconstructing the language of a "contract" to do justice to the idea of God calling us into an inspired conversation with Him, according to His grace and light. It seems clear to me that the Holy Scriptures "function" on a great multiplicity of levels of meaning, simultaneously....)
The two sources of revelation, understood in truth by means of the aid of the Holy Spirit, do not ever contradict each other! I have never seen a single instance of such. And when you think about that, that really is the most gloriously amazing thing....
FWIW.