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

No, there aren’t everything we see has a scientifical explanation because everything we see in the world whether it’s nature or man-made, it is a product of science meaning any disruptions in those products of science will have a scientific explanation to back it up meaning every single thing on this earth can be explained by science now a lot of questions might not be answered because maybe we’re not that advanced in science like for example the exploration of space or of the ocean we can’t answer those questions. Not because signs can’t answer that but it’s because we have a lack of tools and of the basic facts about what we’re exploring, but anything natural disasters changes in the Earth changes in the solar system changes in geography every single thing can be explained by science, there has not been a single event that was not able to be explained by signs and the fact that we can test science with these questions just proves that we can solve them with science

You're conflating "not yet answered" with "answerable." That's the trap. You say we lack tools and facts, but that's exactly my point. There are questions science structurally cannot answer. Why does anything exist rather than nothing? Why do you experience red as red, not as some other quale? These aren't knowledge gaps you fill with better telescopes. They're questions about consciousness, meaning, and existence itself that sit outside the scientific method. Science explains *how* things work, not *why* anything matters or why we're here to ask. Your own example proves it: you admit we can't answer ocean questions *yet*. But "yet" assumes answers exist. Some don't. Some questions aren't scientific questions at all.

Your statement is just completely wrong because science does explain why we exist whether that is a philosophical way or in a scientific way because for example we decide what is right and what is wrong through science we live in in an objectively good way due to science thing to mention the meaning of life, can you bring up the fact that science can’t structurally solve some questions, but this motion isn’t about how advanced we are in science or if we have enough advancements in science to answer most questions it’s about whether there are questions that science can’t answer which no because everything with enough advancements can be able to be solved using science we see this with the way that even philosophers who use science as a main output to answer philosophical questions about existence in life there wouldn’t be any philosophy about the meaning of life a philosopher never had science to back up their claims

You're doing exactly what you accused me of. You claim science answers "why we exist" and "meaning of life," but you haven't actually shown it—you've just asserted it. A neuroscientist can map which brain regions light up when you feel purpose, but that's the *mechanism*, not the meaning. Science tells you oxygen bonds with hemoglobin. It doesn't tell you oxygen *matters*. Philosophy exists precisely because science can't answer value questions. Why should you care about objective goodness? Science can't tell you. It describes. It predicts. It builds rockets. But "should," "meaning," "why anything at all"—those live outside the scientific method. You've proven my point while arguing against it.