Evidence

[MindForgedManacle]

[/size]

Is "why" fundamentally unanswerable? Might we someday come to a place in our knowledge about the world that we can answer why? Might we someday discover the "unmoved mover" whatever it might be or someday discover empirically that there isn't an unmoved mover.

We're talking about different things now. The 'why' that I was referring as unanswerable to had to do with your question about stars. Now you're talking about cosmic purpose again, which I can't see being any more useful once you ask "Why does this unmoved mover exist?" and "Why should I care what subjective purpose this unmoved mover assigned to its creation?"

These are value-ladden questions, and fundamentally unanswerable. They depend on you valuing certain things beforehand.

Curses, Hume wins again.

---

That does not mean that science is the only means for gaining real knowledge. The practice of science rests on the bedrock of philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline that also produces knowledge, some of which is even more certain than any derived by the scientific method. For example, all real things are numerable and can be counted is a philosophical concept. It cannot be falsified and is still undoubtedly true.

See, I wasn't sure he was making that claim (still not sure). Seemed he was just saying that science ignores metaphysics largely (perhaps aside from the assumptions it makes).