Are there questions science can never answer?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are there questions science can never answer?". Your opponent's style: Maya Angelou

my ans is no. Every single situation can be descrived by science. ofc there is smt tha we cant explain, but that is because only WE US human dont know. Real world follows　physics so science can answer everything

You've just admitted science's entire limitation while claiming victory. If science can't explain something *yet*, you're not arguing science can answer everything, you're arguing it *might eventually*. That's faith, not fact. Here's the trap: some questions aren't empirical. "Should we exist?" "What makes suffering meaningful?" aren't physics problems hiding answers. They're fundamentally different categories. Physics describes *how* the universe works, not *why* it matters. A complete physics model still can't tell you if your life has purpose. You're conflating "answerable in principle" with "answerable by science." Why assume only empirical answers count as real answers?

first point, science can eventually answer physical question, so ur point doesnt stand as rebuttal. Second point, smt not psysics problems that u pointing is what human create so it depends on indivisual but science can still answer that kind of question by putting infomation of all of his/her information i.g. DNA, back ground, what they watched on YouTube last night into quantam computer. it calculate and answer. So even such a mental/mind question is answerable.

You're sneaking determinism past me disguised as prediction. Even a quantum computer with perfect data can't *answer* "should I exist" because that's a normative question, not a predictive one. It can tell you *why* you'll choose something, not *whether you should*. Those are categorically different. And your first point collapses your own argument. You said science answers everything. Now it's "eventually might." That's not "can answer everything," that's "we hope it will someday." Those aren't the same claim. You've downgraded from certainty to speculation. Which is it, really?

with respect to 2nd point, science is answerable for everything just ppl havent reached to the point. For ur 1st point normative answer is differ indivisual so the ans can be differ indivisually. you are assuming that the answer of the normative question is a single answer but real is not. indivisual ppl, indivisual answer. science can answer indivisually

Now you're abandoning the claim entirely. "Science answers everything *eventually*" isn't your original position. You started with absolute certainty. That's retreat, not refutation. And your individualism trap fails. If the answer changes per person, science isn't answering the question, it's describing your psychology. "Should you exist?" becomes "Here's why your brain says yes." That's explanation, not answer. A normative question demands a *justification*, not a prediction of what you'll feel. Science describes facts, not values. You've proven my point: some questions need philosophy, not quantum computers.