No reason justifies disbelief.

[bennyboy]

This is a very common logical fallacy made in the name of science, and we've already talked about it.  No number of scientific discoveries provide evidence that science is well-suited to solve a particular new problem-- unless problems of a similar category have already been solved.

That's nice, whatever it is you think you're commenting on...but hasn't and can't still aren't interchangeable.  I still wonder why you think this, and why/how you think you know it.

-and, ofc, why it would even matter?

Again. . . this is an idea that you've introduced, and you're commenting on it as though I said it.  Did I say hasn't = can't?

I would say that if you want to assert that science can answer all kinds of questions, then you'll have to demonstrate this to be true.  As you know, I'm perfectly willing to demonstrate that the evidence is against science answering certain kinds of questions: because of the nature of the question, and because of the nature of science.

Why do I think science cannot explain psychogony?  Because we are limited to objective observations, and mind is subjective.  You can't examine a mind in the lab.
Why do I think science cannot explain ultimate cosmogony?  Because it's limited to material observations from within the Universe, and because we have no reason to believe that limitation can be transcended.

It's not just "Science hasn't solved this, so it can't."  There are plenty of unsolved problems that I feel pretty sure will be solved.  I expect, for example, a general cure to cancer within a century.