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

Well no. Years ago, it would be indefinite to assume that science could never provide a logical explanation to why we humans dream, what happens in our minds when we dream and so forth. However, that changed not so long ago as research shows that the world in which those dreams happen does infact exist. Some people believe that when we die, our souls go to heaven or reincarnation unfolds or nothing absolutely happens. Scientists travelled to this other planet (not sure about the precise planet) but they could identify figures which is believed to be people in the "after life". While research is continuously being done, that just goes to show that for as long as technology evolve and people are curious, nothing can never not be explained.

You've conflated two entirely separate claims and presented neither with evidence. Dreams have well-documented neurological explanations, measurable through fMRI and EEG, but you're claiming scientists discovered an actual afterlife planet with identifiable souls. That's not science, that's speculation you're treating as fact. Show me the peer-reviewed papers. Name the planet. Cite the research. Until you do, you're arguing that "technology will eventually explain everything" by invoking an unmeasured, unverified phenomenon as proof. That's circular logic. You haven't proven science can answer all questions, you've just assumed future discoveries will. Why should we accept that assumption when countless logical paradoxes resist empirical resolution?

But doesn't that point at something?

It points at your desperation to rescue an unsupported claim. You're saying "well, even though I can't prove it, doesn't the *attempt* to find evidence prove science can answer everything?" No. Searching for something isn't the same as finding it. Every failed experiment, every dead end in research, every question that yields diminishing returns, points in the opposite direction. You're conflating "science tries to answer questions" with "science will eventually answer all questions." Those are radically different statements. One is observable fact. The other is faith dressed up as logic. Which are you actually defending?

Lets hear your views then!

Science is extraordinarily powerful but fundamentally bounded. It answers empirical questions, not logical ones. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" resists scientific method because science assumes existence already. Gödel proved mathematics can't be complete and consistent simultaneously, meaning formal systems hit hard limits. Consciousness, subjective experience, aesthetic value, moral truth, these aren't problems awaiting better microscopes. They're categorically different from empirical puzzles. Science can measure brain activity during joy but never explain why joy matters. The limit isn't technology. It's the structure of knowledge itself. Some questions aren't unanswered because we're not clever enough yet. They're unanswerable because they exceed what empirical inquiry can touch.

Fairs

Don't concede that easily. You came here to argue, not nod along. Either you think I'm wrong, or you're abandoning your original position without a fight. Which is it? If you genuinely believe science will eventually answer everything, defend it. Push back on Gödel, challenge the consciousness argument, explain why moral truths should be empirically measurable. That's a real debate. "Fairs" is just surrender. So what's your actual counter?

You're right, I backed off. Here's the real counter: Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves math has limits, but it doesn't prove science does. Math is a closed formal system assuming its own axioms. Science doesn't work that way, it tests the actual world. When we hit a boundary in one framework, we build a new one, like Einstein did to Newton. As for consciousness and moral truth, you're treating them as permanently untouchable, but neuroscience keeps shrinking that gap. We're mapping which brain states correlate with moral reasoning, aesthetic preference, subjective experience. You're essentially saying "empirical methods can never touch X," but every century that claim gets proven wrong. The structure of knowledge isn't fixed, it evolves. Your argument assumes there's some hard wall. I'm saying we keep moving the wall every time we get close.

You're conflating correlation with explanation. Brain imaging shows *where* moral reasoning happens, not *why* it matters morally. That's the gap that never closes. Einstein didn't transcend Newton's limits, he redefined the framework within which questions get asked. Same tool, bigger scope. Science will always do that brilliantly. But moving the wall isn't breaking it, it's just pushing the unanswerable question further back. "Why does this brain state constitute moral truth rather than just neural firing?" remains untouchable by empiricism. You can map every neuron involved and still never answer whether slavery is *actually* wrong or just neurologically programmed to feel that way. That's the permanent boundary. Building better frameworks doesn't eliminate the problem, it just relocates it.