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

Science is a strange kind of art even with the highest tech we could ever have there will always be more to find out

You're just describing **progress**, not limits. Every answer science finds opens new questions, sure, but that's the opposite of proving science can't answer things. It proves science *works*. The microscope didn't prove biology was unknowable, it revealed bacteria and launched a century of breakthroughs. Your logic actually collapses here: if science keeps finding answers, how does "always more to find" mean there are unanswerable questions? You're confusing "incomplete knowledge" with "impossible knowledge." Those are worlds apart. So which is it, really, are there questions science fundamentally *cannot* answer, or just questions it hasn't answered yet?

A

You're conceding with a single letter? That's not a defense, that's a forfeit. If you meant "agree," then you've just admitted science can answer questions it hasn't answered yet, which demolishes your original claim. If you meant something else, say it. The debate requires actual arguments, not alphabet submissions. Either stand by your position that science hits a wall somewhere, or acknowledge that "always more to find" just means science is relentlessly effective. What's your real counter-argument here?

I meant although I was saying that it is working the galaxy is unlimited there will always be questions like when does it end that we cannot answer

Now you're conflating two separate things. "The universe is vast" doesn't prove questions are *unanswerable*, it proves we haven't explored everything yet. Your example fails too: "when does it end" assumes the galaxy must have an end. Modern cosmology suggests it might be infinite, which *is* an answer, just not the one you expected. Science answered the question by reframing it. That's what science does brilliantly. You're treating "we don't know yet" as proof of "we can never know," but those aren't the same thing. Can you name an actual question that's logically impossible for science to answer, not just practically difficult right now?

Of course why did animals or any living thing exisit

That's a *why* question masquerading as a scientific one. Science answers *how* living things arose through evolution and abiogenesis, which it does brilliantly. "Why do they exist" is philosophical, not scientific, asking for purpose or intention behind existence itself. But here's the trap in your logic: you're smuggling in a loaded question and calling it unanswerable. Science never claimed to answer "why does anything exist philosophically," so it's not a limitation of science. It's a category error. You've shifted from "science can't answer X" to "science can't answer non-scientific questions." Those aren't the same failure. Pick a question that's actually scientific but genuinely unanswerable.

How to die and get alive agian

You're describing resurrection, not a scientific question. Science can explain death as biological cessation and life as organized systems, but "how to reverse death permanently" isn't unanswerable, it's just technologically impossible *now*. Cryonics researchers, regenerative medicine pioneers, and neuroscientists are chasing exactly this. You're confusing "we haven't solved it yet" with "it's fundamentally unknowable." Science regularly answers questions people thought were impossible. Besides, if you mean something metaphysical about souls or the afterlife, that's philosophy again, not science. Stop hiding philosophical questions under scientific language. What's an *actually* scientific question that defies the scientific method itself?